PDA

View Full Version : Information The Olivet Discourse



markedward
Jun 1st 2008, 12:09 AM
Now, in a recent thread I said that I would try to explain how the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in its entirety in the first century, as the Preterist viewpoint generally believes.

However, before I begin that, I must bring up another point first:

It was brought up in the other thread that Luke 21 is not the gospel of Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24 and Mark 13. Now, this is not a new idea; I've met a few other people who believe(d) the same thing. But I adamantly believe that all three chapters (Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21) are the same thing.

For that, I've prepared a webpage with a table comparing the three chapters.

http://home.mchsi.com/~avegen/olivetdiscourse.htm

If anyone who disagrees with this, I respectfully ask that you start another thread about why you disagree, rather than derailing this one. This thread is not to serve the purpose of debating this point, it is solely for the explanation of the Olivet Discourse.

So before I move on, it must be noted:

Anyone who reads this thread concedes that Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 are the same thing at least for the sake of the explanation. Do not debate this point in this thread.

jeffweeder
Jun 1st 2008, 12:39 AM
Hi Mark

That is an excellent table, thanks for the effort.

It is very clear that luke is dealing with the same discourse as Matt/Mk.

This defines the AOD as being the Roman armies ,and the start of the Great Tribulation-or as luke puts it-the days of vengeance, with the Jews being carried off to the nations,- 70AD..........................

until the times of the gentiles over Jerusalem end.
- We had to wait a while for this to be fufilled
Now for the heavenly signs and the waves...................It maybe time to start raising our heads dont you think....



"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near.
21 "Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city;
22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.
23 "Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people;
24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
25 "There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves,
26 men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
27 "Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD with power and great glory.
28 "But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."

moonglow
Jun 1st 2008, 01:00 AM
Great post and wonderful chart...how long did it take you to put that together? Good work!

I never ever heard of anyone not thinking Luke 21 wasn't the same thing as Matthew 24..I mean they are SO similar...how could anyone not think they were speaking of the same things? All four gospels cover much of the same ground, only given by different viewpoints is all...no different then four people seeing a circus together and describing much of the same things...one or two leaving out the clowns but all four mentioning the elephants...one or two going into more detail such as what were the dogs wearing in the way of costumes while the other two barely mention it. They all work together though to give a complete picture of what was going on though. So it would seem odd to not have something this huge not mentioned at least in three of the gospels...

Oh you might want to clarify..partial Preterist so the mod won't takes down your post since full preterist is not allowed.

God bless

markedward
Jun 1st 2008, 01:09 AM
The Second Temple ::: Matthew 24:1-3 ::: Mark 13:1-4 ::: Luke 21:5-7
When Jesus said "Do you see all these things?" what does "these things" refer to? The buildings of the second temple of Jerusalem. So when Jesus said "not one stone" would be left standing, what stones was He referring to? The stones of the buildings of the second temple of Jerusalem. So when the disciples asked "when will this happen," what was the "this" they were asking about? The throwing down of the stones of the buildings of the second temple of Jerusalem. And what was Jesus' response to their question about when the stones of the buildings of the second temple of Jerusalem would be thrown down? His response was Matthew 24:4-31, the very same "these things" He was speaking of in Matthew 24:34. So if the entirety of Jesus' Olivet Discourse was a response to the question of when the throwing down of the stones of the buildings of the second temple of Jerusalem would take place, and His response finished off with "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened," then obviously the throwing down of the stones of the buildings of the second temple of Jerusalem was included in the events of "these things."

Don't Be Deceived ::: Matthew 24:4 ::: Mark 13:5 ::: Luke 21:8
Jesus had just told His disciples that the second temple would be destroyed. The disciples (Mark relays that it was only four of them: Peter, James, John, and Andrew) asked Jesus when the temple would be destroyed ("When shall these things be?"), and further asked for signs of Jesus' Coming (the Coming of the Son of Man) and the "end of the age." (It is important to note: the disciples equated the second temple's destruction with the Coming and the "end of the age." Jesus did not dispel their beliefs that these three events were related to each other.)

In response, Jesus begins to describe to them the signs that they asked for - events that would precede (A) the destruction of the second temple, (B) the Coming of Jesus, and (C) the "end of the age."

Jesus' initial warning is that the disciples be on their guard not to be deceived...

False Messiahs ::: Matthew 24:4-5 ::: Mark 13:5-6 ::: Luke 21:8
Jesus warned against false messiahs, people claiming to be the Messiah (Greek Christ). An early example of a false messiah could very well be Simon the magician, a man who was deceiving the people with his sorcery, even convincing people he was "the great power of God." (Acts 8:9-11) There was a Jewish man named Josephus who lived during the first century, who acted as a historian, recording the entirety of Jewish history between the creation and on through his own lifetime, including the events of the first century. He records a man named Theudas who convinced people of Judea that he was a prophet and led many people astray before he himself was killed. (Josephus, The Jewish Antiquities 20.5.1) He even says that during the reign of Nero (rule: 54-68 AD), under the Roman procurator of Judea, Felix (rule: 52-60 AD), there were "imposters" (by context he appears to be referring to Messianic imposters) being put to death nearly every day. (Josephus, The Jewish Antiquities 20.8.5-6) Josephus also makes mention of individuals who made claim of authority during the Jewish Revolt (66-73 AD), that although Josephus did not directly state as much, the contexts of their actions (wearing purple robes, leading people to the Jordan River, etc.) certainly lends to the idea that they were indeed claiming to be the Messiah. This passage was fulfilled, at the least, in 50-70 AD, if not even earlier as well.

Wars ::: Matthew 24:6 ::: Mark 13:7 ::: Luke 21:9
During the decades following Jesus' ascension, "wars and rumors of wars" were rampant, especially within Judea. Roman rulers in the regions oppressed the Jewish people, sparking numerous riots and revolts. Following Emperor Nero's suicide, civil war occurs between as various men vie for the title of Emperor. The Batavian Rebellion occurred the same year, in the Roman province Germania Inferior. Within Judea, the First Jewish-Roman War finally erupted as well. Roman historian Tacitus wrote this about the time period; "The history on which I am entering is that of a period rich in disaster, terrible with battles, torn by civil struggles, horrible even in peace. Four emperors fell by the sword, there were three civil wars, more foreign wars, and often both at the same time." (Tacitus, The Histories 1:2)

Take special note: The reason this particular prophecy is significant is because it was prophesied during the Pax Romana, the Roman Peace. This prophecy is insignificant if we apply it to our modern world, when wars are constantly going on. That Jesus prophesied about wars indicated that the wars would be an unusual occurance, which would indeed have been the case during the time period of Roman Peace.

Nations/Kingdoms Fighting ::: Matthew 24:7 ::: Mark 13:8 ::: Luke 21:10
The rebellion in Roman-controlled Britannia took place in 61 AD, and as already mentioned were the Batavian Rebellion and the First Jewish-Roman War. Two kingdoms from across the Euphrates, Commagene and Sophene, were called upon by the Romans to aid in putting down the Jewish revolt.

Famines ::: Matthew 24:7 ::: Mark 13:8 ::: Luke 21:11
A famine is recorded in Acts 11:28. Josephus records famine in the first century (Josephus, The Jewish Antiquities 20.2.5). There was also famine going on during the siege of Jerusalem during the First Jewish-Roman War.

Earthquakes ::: Matthew 24:7 ::: Mark 13:8 ::: Luke 21:11
One is recorded in Acts 16:26. Three earthquakes are recorded as taking place at Rome in the 51 AD (Tacitus, The Annals 12.43.1). In 60 AD, an earthquake destroyed the city of Laodicea. Mt. Vesuvius (famous for its 79 AD eruption) was rocked by an earthquake in 69 AD, causing damage around the Bay of Naples and Pompeii.

Troubles/Plague ::: Mark 13:8 ::: Luke 21:11
In the first century AD, Rufus of Ephesus, a Greek anatomist, refers to an outbreak of plague in Libya, Egypt, and Syria.

Fearful Signs From Heaven ::: Luke 21:11
According to the Jewish-Roman historian Josephus, in the years preceding the First Jewish-Roman War, there were such things. He writes of a "star resembling a sword" and a comet that was seen for a full year (Halley’s Comet). He also records that "chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor … running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities" were seen shortly before sunset on a few days after a particular feast. Also, he records that the eastern gate of the inner court of the temple in Jerusalem (described as being extremely heavy) was opened "of its own accord," which the "men of learning understood … that the security of their holy house was dissolved … and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies." Lastly, Josephus describes how at Pentecost, the priests were in the inner court of the temple when "they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, ‘Let us remove from here." (Josephus, The Jewish War 6.5.3) The Roman historian Tacitus also records these events; "In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armor. A sudden lightning flash from the clouds lit up the temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure." (Tacitus, The Histories 5.13)

Cyberseeker
Jun 1st 2008, 01:20 AM
Thanks for the chart which I printed out and I will be following this thread with interest.

Cyberseeker

jeffweeder
Jun 1st 2008, 01:33 AM
Within a Gen of him saying it,it happened.


So if the entirety of Jesus' Olivet Discourse was a response to the question of when the throwing down of the stones of the buildings of the second temple of Jerusalem would take place, and His response finished off with "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened," then obviously the throwing down of the stones of the buildings of the second temple of Jerusalem was included in the events of "these things."


But they asked him about his coming as well.
I see his answer as the times of gentiles over Jerusalem would be fulfilled (return from the exile) as a sign. He then says heavenly signs will happen(from that point).
He concludes by saying---when you see these things then that generation will not pass away.



So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near.
32 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place.
33 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away

markedward
Jun 1st 2008, 01:36 AM
First list of fulfillments (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1656854&postcount=4)

Persecution ::: Matthew 24:9 ::: Mark 13:9 ::: Luke 21:12
Jesus promised His disciples that they would undergo persecution. This persecution is recorded as beginning in the events of Acts. However, an intensified persecution began by the hand of the Emperor Nero, beginning in 64 AD, though dying out of the spotlight in 68 AD with Nero's death, when civil war in Rome stole the public eye, immediately followed by war in Judea. Tacitus records that Nero's persecution began by means of him assigning the blame of the Great Fire of Rome upon the Christians. He goes on to describe various forms of persecution the Christians underwent, including: being covered in animal skins to be attacked by wild beasts, crucifixions, and even to serve as fastened to posts in the city streets to be lit on fire at night to serve as lamps. Tacitus said that the assault upon the Christians under Nero was so extreme that the public at large (who considered Christians to be a superstitious cult) felt great compassion towards the persecuted. (Tacitus, The Annals 15.39-44)



Gospel Preached ::: Matthew 24:14 ::: Mark 13:10
Jesus' disciples went on to spread the gospel out beyond Judea, through the various surrounding regions of the Roman Empire. Acts records multiple accounts of the apostles being taken to synagogues and prisons, and being taken in front of kings and governors. Acts also records multiple attacks upon the followers of Christ. Matthew quotes Jesus as saying that the gospel would be preached to "the whole world" (Mark, "to all nations"). Was such a feat fulfilled in the first century? There are a few ways to clarify this:

The Greek word that is translated in Matthew as "the whole world" is oikoumene. This word, when using its root words, literally means "the inhabited land." Traditionally, the ancient classical world used this word to refer to the extent of the Greek world, and during the reign of the Roman Empire it was used likewise for the Roman world. Translating oikoumene as "the whole world" is misleading because the word itself does not actually mean "the whole world," and neither was it used to refer to the whole world in literalistic terms.

Now, did the early Christians think that when Jesus said the gospel would be preached to the world, He was speaking of just the Roman world? I say yes, and for support I simply suggest reading the book of Acts. The Acts details the events of the early spreading of the gospel, primarily by the apostles of Jesus, as well as the apostle Paul. Now, Acts starts off with the issuing of the command for the apostles to spread the gospel. Jesus is quoted as saying, "and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." Jesus' command was first Jerusalem, second Judea and Samaria, and finally the ends of the earth. The events of Acts start off with the disciples in Jerusalem. (Acts 2) From there, they spread outward into Judea and Samaria. (Acts 8:1) From there, the story shifts over to Paul, and follows his travels through Asia Minor, and eventually to Rome, where the story ends with the statement that Paul boldly preached the gospel in Rome. (Acts 28:30-31) The overall story of Acts directly parallels Jesus' command of Jerusalem then Judea/Samaria then the ends of the earth, with Paul's arrival in Rome being the center of the Roman world. As such, it certainly does seem that the earliest Christians equated the "world" with simply the Roman world.

There are also a few specific verses from the New Testament that support this idea.

Acts 24:5
We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.

Romans 1:8
I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is proclaimed in the whole world.

Romans 10:18
But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."

Colossians 1:6
All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood God's grace in all its truth.

Colossians 1:32
This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

Both the author of Acts and the apostle Paul seemed to consider that the gospel had been "proclaimed to every creature under heaven" during their own time period, so it certainly seems like they understood "world" to mean "Roman world."



Abomination of Desolation ::: Matthew 24:15-22 ::: Mark 13:14-20 ::: Luke 21:20-24
First off, what is important to note is that where Matthew and Mark say


"When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation'"

Luke instead says


"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near."

All three versions warn the people to flee to the mountains, not even taking the time to gather their belongings to take with them. Each says how woeful it would be for pregnant woman and nursing mothers, and that those fleeing should pray that would not have to "take flight in winter or on the Sabbath." But, where Luke's version is different, it provides a direct insight into what Jesus was referring to when He said "the abomination that causes desolation." He was speaking of invading armies.

To explain this section: The "abomination that causes desolation" is invading Gentile armies. They would surround Jerusalem. The people in Jerusalem should make sure to flee the city into the mountains, which would be especially difficult for pregnant women or nursing mother. Jesus says that the people should pray that this devastation would not take place in winter, because of the difficulty it would add to their flight. Jesus also warns them to pray against it taking place on the Sabbath, for the Jews would be in violation of the Law for going to places farther than mere walking distance. Jesus says the invading armies are for "punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written," and that they are "wrath against this people." The Jews would be either killed or captured and taken as prisoners to foreign nations. Jerusalem itself would be owned by the Gentiles who invaded it.

This is quite plainly describing the destruction of Jerusalem by Gentile armies, so it is here that we come full circle back to what Jesus had said that sparked the whole Discourse to begin with. It is during this time that the second temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed, when "not one stone will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

As pointed out earlier, Jesus stated that "all these things" would be fulfilled within the lifetime of His generation. So far, everything in the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the decades following Jesus' ascension to heaven, still within the lifetime of His generation. And, as you should know, Jerusalem and the temple were also destroyed within the same generation's lifetime.

In the 60's AD, the Jews began to revolt against their Roman rulers. The conflict got so bad that Roman legions from throughout various regions of the Empire were sent to Judea to put down the revolt. The Romans laid siege to Jerusalem. In 70 AD the Roman legions forced their way into Jerusalem, massacring people throughout the city. Those that lived were enslaved and spread throughout the Roman Empire.

markedward
Jun 1st 2008, 01:46 AM
Second list of fulfillments (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1655304&postcount=21)

Sun/moon/stars ::: Matthew 24:29 ::: Mark 13:24-25 ::: Luke 21:25-26
This is often mistaken to say that the universe as a whole is supposed to come to an end, following the above-detailed events. But similar prophetic language is used in various places of the Old Testament, in prophecies made peoples and nations that were ancient even compared to the days of the Roman Empire. Compare the above to the following Old Testament verses.

2 Samuel 22:8-13
The earth trembled and quaked, the foundations of the heavens shook; they trembled because he was angry. Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it. He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet. He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind. He made darkness his canopy around him—the dark rain clouds of the sky. Out of the brightness of his presence bolts of lightning blazed forth.

This was one of the psalms David wrote "when the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul." Obviously God didn't literally rides on the clouds down to the earth to destroy Saul and David's other enemies. According to David, God did come, but He came in the sense of judgment; it wasn't a literal coming, it was a figurative coming. Similar passages include: Isaiah 13:9-10, prophesied on Babylon; Isaiah 34:4-5, prophesied on Edom; Ezekiel 32:7-8, prophesied on Egypt. (See this post (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1655304&postcount=21) to see how many of these were fulfilled in a non-literal fashion.)

Jesus was not saying that the world would come to an end, He was using well-known Jewish prophetic language to speak of how dreadful a coming judgment would be.



Coming on Clouds ::: Matthew 24:30 ::: Mark 13:26 ::: Luke 21:27
Matthew's version of this is very similar to a passage in Revelation 1. Matthew says "the sign of the Son of Man" will appear in the sky, causing the nations to mourn. The Revelation, however, says that the mourning will be caused by the "coming on the clouds," so the "sign of the Son of Man" simply seems to be the same thing as the "Son of Man coming on the clouds."

Now, as shown above, Jesus was not prophesying the sun and moon to literally go dark, or the stars to literally fall to the earth, but that He was using familiar Jewish prophetic language to depict the severity of a coming judgment. Similarly, Jesus' use of clouds appeals to two things. First, it goes back directly to a passage in the book of Daniel.

Daniel 7:13
In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Here we see the Son of Man "coming on the clouds of heaven" to God. He isn't depicted as "coming" to earth, He is depicted as "coming" to God (the Father), who Jesus continually stated was in heaven. So when Jesus was prophesying that the Son of Man would "come" clouds, He was speaking of His being given His power and glory by God in heaven. Now, the second thing that Jesus' "coming on the clouds" appeals to is other Old Testament prophetic language. Just as the darkening sun and moon and stars was common Old Testament language for judgment, the use of clouds to signify dominion and judgment was common as well. The following passages are either descriptions of God, poetry of His previous actions, or prophetic exhortations upon ancient pagan nations who are long gone.

Deuteronomy 33:26
There is no one like the God of Jeshurun, who rides on the heavens to help you and on the clouds in his majesty.

2 Samuel 22:8-13
The earth trembled and quaked, the foundations of the heavens shook; they trembled because he was angry. Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it. He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet. He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind. He made darkness his canopy around him—the dark rain clouds of the sky. Out of the brightness of his presence bolts of lightning blazed forth.

Psalm 104:2-3
He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters. He makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the wind.

Isaiah 19:1
An oracle concerning Egypt: See, the LORD rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt. The idols of Egypt tremble before him, and the hearts of the Egyptians melt within them.

Isaiah 20:1-4 tells us that this judgment upon Egypt was exacted through the hands of the Assyrians, taking place between 671 and 667 BC.

Jeremiah 4:13
Look! He advances like the clouds, his chariots come like a whirlwind, his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe to us! We are ruined!

Ezekiel 30:3-4
For the day is near, the day of the LORD is near—a day of clouds, a time of doom for the nations. A sword will come against Egypt, and anguish will come upon Cush. When the slain fall in Egypt, her wealth will be carried away and her foundations torn down.

Zephaniah 1:15-17
The great day of the LORD is near - near and coming quickly. Listen! The cry on the day of the LORD will be bitter, the shouting of the warrior there. That day will be a day of wrath, a day of distress and anguish, a day of trouble and ruin, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness, a day of trumpet and battle cry against the fortified cities and against the corner towers. I will bring distress on the people and they will walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD. Their blood will be poured out like dust and their entrails like filth.

Prophesied against Jerusalem. God's "day of clouds" was made true through Babylon, between 606-587 BC.

According to the Old Testament, God made many "comings" by way of clouds, but they did not consist of Him literally riding on clouds down to the earth - the clouds were symbolic of His divine right to dominion, and the "comings" were of judgment upon peoples and nations. Likewise, the "coming of the Son of Man" that Jesus prophesied was one of judgment, coinciding with Luke's statement that "this is the time of punishment." This "coming" of judgment likely took place on the same day of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem in 70 AD. All of the "tribes of the earth" (that is, the tribes of Israel) did mourn the catastrophic loss of their temple, and with this destruction, Jesus was vindicated by the fulfillment of His prophecy.

jeffweeder
Jun 1st 2008, 01:52 AM
This is really cool stuff Mark.

What i will say about the Gospel being preached in all the world---somewhere it mentoins every tribe /race etc---Every creature.

Christ wont come back until all hear it.
The Australian Aborigines never heard it until a few hundred years ago.

This gospel will be preached to all...and then the end will come.

markedward
Jun 1st 2008, 01:55 AM
What i will say about the Gospel being preached in all the world---somewhere it mentoins every tribe /race etc---Every creature.Colossians 1:32
This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

Paul says this in past tense.


Christ wont come back until all hear it.
The Australian Aborigines never heard it until a few hundred years ago.


The Greek word that is translated in Matthew as "the whole world" is oikoumene. This word, when using its root words, literally means "the inhabited land." Traditionally, the ancient classical world used this word to refer to the extent of the Greek world, and during the reign of the Roman Empire it was used likewise for the Roman world. Translating oikoumene as "the whole world" is misleading because the word itself does not actually mean "the whole world," and neither was it used to refer to the whole world in literalistic terms.

Now, did the early Christians think that when Jesus said the gospel would be preached to the world, He was speaking of just the Roman world? I say yes, and for support I simply suggest reading the book of Acts. The Acts details the events of the early spreading of the gospel, primarily by the apostles of Jesus, as well as the apostle Paul. Now, Acts starts off with the issuing of the command for the apostles to spread the gospel. Jesus is quoted as saying, "and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." Jesus' command was first Jerusalem, second Judea and Samaria, and finally the ends of the earth. The events of Acts start off with the disciples in Jerusalem. (Acts 2) From there, they spread outward into Judea and Samaria. (Acts 8:1) From there, the story shifts over to Paul, and follows his travels through Asia Minor, and eventually to Rome, where the story ends with the statement that Paul boldly preached the gospel in Rome. (Acts 28:30-31) The overall story of Acts directly parallels Jesus' command of Jerusalem then Judea/Samaria then the ends of the earth, with Paul's arrival in Rome being the center of the Roman world. As such, it certainly does seem that the earliest Christians equated the "world" with simply the Roman world.

moonglow
Jun 1st 2008, 02:10 AM
Wars ::: Matthew 24:6 ::: Mark 13:7 ::: Luke 21:9
During the decades following Jesus' ascension, "wars and rumors of wars" were rampant, especially within Judea. Roman rulers in the regions oppressed the Jewish people, sparking numerous riots and revolts. Following Emperor Nero's suicide, civil war occurs between as various men vie for the title of Emperor. The Batavian Rebellion occurred the same year, in the Roman province Germania Inferior. Within Judea, the First Jewish-Roman War finally erupted as well. Roman historian Tacitus wrote this about the time period; "The history on which I am entering is that of a period rich in disaster, terrible with battles, torn by civil struggles, horrible even in peace. Four emperors fell by the sword, there were three civil wars, more foreign wars, and often both at the same time." (Tacitus, The Histories 1:2)

Take special note: The reason this particular prophecy is significant is because it was prophesied during the Pax Romana, the Roman Peace. This prophecy is insignificant if we apply it to our modern world, when wars are constantly going on. That Jesus prophesied about wars indicated that the wars would be an unusual occurance, which would indeed have been the case during the time period of Roman Peace.

I didn't know this! Thanks for the information...following with interest...:)

Yea jeffweeder, the gospel has already been preached to the whole world (back then the world was alot smaller...you missed that in mark's post) There are websites about when Rome ruled the world...Rome WAS the world back then...they ruled with terror but they ruled...:(

God bless

markedward
Jun 1st 2008, 02:31 AM
I didn't know this! Thanks for the information...following with interest...Just to make sure people know: there were occasional minor conflicts during the time period of the Pax Romana, and there were disputes on the edges and outside the Roman Empire, but within the Empire, there were no all-out wars until after Jesus ascended to heaven, which is why His prophecy about "wars and rumors of wars" would have individually carried some importance with it during the time of the first-century Christians.

Jeffweeder:

In this post (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1656886&postcount=7) I provided a few Biblical cases where the Roman world was considered "the whole world."

Also consider these:


And it came to pass in those days, there went forth a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world be enrolled...Some translations say "that the Roman world be enrolled" because it is understood that Augustus would have only called for a consensus of the Roman Empire - there's no way he would have been abled to have a consensus of the whole world, such as India or China. The only word used is the Greek oikoumene.

moonglow
Jun 1st 2008, 02:56 AM
Mark...check your link ..didn't work...went to the main board here and not to a post.

Yea on Rome I have seen not just websites but even documentaries referring to Rome as the world...(from the past point of view of course) The mighty Roman Empire...:hmm:. That is a good verse you posted I always struggle when I try to explain to people what the 'world' was back then...everyone is seeing the 'world' literally as in the whole earth and everyone on it but that isn't what these scriptures are talking about. I had a hard time at first too understanding that. As little children we are shown a globe..and told this is the 'world'...so when we read the bible and see the word, 'world'...that is what we picture in our minds! Someone needs to explain at an early age how to read 'bible'...not just 'the' bible...but 'bible' ...we do it with many other things when we read it such as we know the Sword in many places means the Word of God and not a real sword. Could give alot of other examples here too...you know what I mean, but we tend to still read too much from a worldly (secular) point of view, I think...

God bless

markedward
Jun 1st 2008, 03:13 AM
Mark...check your link ..didn't work...went to the main board here and not to a post.Alright, I think I fixed it. Thanks for the notice.

jeffweeder
Jun 1st 2008, 03:43 AM
Jeffweeder:

In this post I provided a few Biblical cases where the Roman world was considered "the whole world."

Also consider these:


What im alluding to ,is that the Aborigines would of existed in Romes day, but knowone knew about them.
God most certainly did, and i cant see him not wanting the gospel to go to them also.
Cant blame Paul for thinking that the Gospel had gone to the known world, but apparantley not to the very end of the earth.
Surely God is not going forget about them right....welll he hasnt, as some have heard..and believe.....thanks be to God.

God bless ya

The Village Idiot
Jun 1st 2008, 04:16 AM
Colossians 1:32
This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

Paul says this in past tense.

But the fact of their faith was being reported back again!


"Not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God" (1Th 1:8-9)!

Translation?

"Message received and understood...over!" :)

Cyberseeker
Jun 1st 2008, 08:45 AM
The great day of the LORD is near - near and coming quickly. Listen! The cry on the day of the LORD will be bitter, the shouting of the warrior there. That day will be a day of wrath, a day of distress and anguish, a day of trouble and ruin, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness, a day of trumpet and battle cry against the fortified cities and against the corner towers. I will bring distress on the people and they will walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD. Their blood will be poured out like dust and their entrails like filth.

Markedward explains, Prophesied against Jerusalem. God's "day of clouds" was made true through Babylon, between 606-587 BC.

But what he forgot to quote was Zephaniah verses 1 to 3.

“I will make an end and I will utterly consume and sweep away all things from the face of the earth, says the Lord. I will consume and sweep away man and beast; I will consume and sweep away the birds of the air and the fish of the sea. I will overthrow the stumbling blocks with the wicked, and I will cut off mankind from the face of the earth, says the Lord.”
You see, this prophecy goes far beyond its initial fulfillment in the Babylonian conquest. And such specific detail can not be flicked off as “idiom - Jewish prophetic language to depict the severity of a coming judgment.” A far better explanation of the end-of-the-world prophecies is to interpret them as having initial as well as final (ultimate) fulfillment - dual fulfillment for lack of a better term.

Look, here is another description from the same prophet!

“In the fire of his jealousy, all the earth shall be consumed; for a full and sudden end he will make of all the inhabitants of the earth.” (Zeph 1:18)
Babylon invading Judah BC586? mmmm :hmm: all right. But only as a precursor of ...

"Heaven and earth will pass away!" (Olivet discourse - Matt 24:35)

moonglow
Jun 1st 2008, 03:25 PM
Markedward explains, Prophesied against Jerusalem. God's "day of clouds" was made true through Babylon, between 606-587 BC.

But what he forgot to quote was Zephaniah verses 1 to 3.

“I will make an end and I will utterly consume and sweep away all things from the face of the earth, says the Lord. I will consume and sweep away man and beast; I will consume and sweep away the birds of the air and the fish of the sea. I will overthrow the stumbling blocks with the wicked, and I will cut off mankind from the face of the earth, says the Lord.”
You see, this prophecy goes far beyond its initial fulfillment in the Babylonian conquest. And such specific detail can not be flicked off as “idiom - Jewish prophetic language to depict the severity of a coming judgment.” A far better explanation of the end-of-the-world prophecies is to interpret them as having initial as well as final (ultimate) fulfillment - dual fulfillment for lack of a better term.

Look, here is another description from the same prophet!

“In the fire of his jealousy, all the earth shall be consumed; for a full and sudden end he will make of all the inhabitants of the earth.” (Zeph 1:18)
Babylon invading Judah BC586? mmmm :hmm: all right. But only as a precursor of ...

"Heaven and earth will pass away!" (Olivet discourse - Matt 24:35)


I think mark was talking about WHY Jesus used the term 'coming on the clouds' and what it meant in the OT is all. He was simply showing what this meant to the Jews...that 'coming on the clouds' was something only for God alone to do...showing His power and majesty. Then he showed how these expressive verses didn't literally happen but instead one nation overthrew another nation....that was the only point he was making. He isn't addressing how everything will eventually end...this is only about the Olivet Discourse is all...of course there is more to the story regarding the end times...but that isn't the topic of this thread.

God bless

Literalist-Luke
Jun 2nd 2008, 07:39 PM
Markedward, assuming that we were to go along with your arguments (which I will agree were presented quite effectively, even if not quite convincingly), how would you suggest that one is to view the part in the Olivet Discourse about the 2nd Coming? About the whole world seeing it like lightning, and so forth? Are you suggesting that the 2nd Coming part has been fulfilled? If you are not, then how are we supposed to know which parts of the Olivet Discourse to take literally at face value and which ones to take sybolically such as you are suggesting?

markedward
Jun 2nd 2008, 09:19 PM
Markedward, assuming that we were to go along with your arguments (which I will agree were presented quite effectively, even if not quite convincingly), how would you suggest that one is to view the part in the Olivet Discourse about the 2nd Coming? About the whole world seeing it like lightning, and so forth? Are you suggesting that the 2nd Coming part has been fulfilled?I believe that the Olivet Discourse, including the Coming of the Son of Man, was fulfilled within the lifetimes of the generation Jesus was speaking to. But that does not mean I consider the Coming of the Son of Man was the "Second Coming."

When Christ said that the "coming of the Son of Man" would be "as lightning," I don't think He was meaning that He would suddenly zap onto the earth from a bolt of lightning. I read this statement as meaning it would be bold, and loud, and noticeable.

As I said before, the phrasing of the "coming on the clouds of heaven" says two things, both of which require the Old Testament to interpret. The first is that it was referring to Daniel 7:13-14, where the Son of Man "comes on the clouds" to God to be given His dominion and authority. The second is that the Old Testament used God coming on clouds as prophetic imagery for His coming in judgment.

At His trial, Christ says that when He would come on the clouds, He would come with "great power and glory." The Olivet Discourse uses similar words, but specifically says that the "tribes of the earth" would mourn the coming. Remember the context of the Olivet Discourse (the destruction of the second temple), and that Luke quotes Jesus as saying it would be a "time of vengeance." The disciples' original questions are also significant:

"When shall these things [the destruction of the second temple] be? And what will be the signs of Your coming and of the end of the age?"

When Jesus prophesied about the destruction of the second temple, the disciples immediately began to see it as coinciding with the coming (of the Son of Man) and "the end of the age." Jesus didn't try to dispel or correct this belief, so that He immediately answers their questions tells us just as much as the disciples initially thought: the Coming of the Son of Man and "the end of the age" were events that would take place at the same time as the destruction of the second temple.

When the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and the second temple, the Jews knew that God's wrath had come upon them. Even the Romans knew that the God of the Jews had given them into the Roman's hands. The second temple and the Old Covenant had been done away with, not only exactly as Jesus had prophesied in the Olivet Discourse, but it had happened in the most catastrophic way. And according to the Discourse, the destruction of the second temple coincided with "the end of the age" (which I and others see as the end of the temple age) and the coming of the Son of Man. In that way, the coming of the Son of Man was indeed "as lightning," because the destruction of Jerusalem/the second temple/the Old Covenant was as dreadful as Jesus said it would be. Jesus had not only been given His kingdom, but He was also vindicated by the fulfillment of His prophecies.


If you are not, then how are we supposed to know which parts of the Olivet Discourse to take literally at face value and which ones to take sybolically such as you are suggesting?By comparing it to the Old Testament is my usual answer. When reading the Revelation, I think it's highly erroneous to read it as if there isn't any way to interpret what is written in it. There is, and that is to read it in comparison to the Old Testament Scriptures, and to try to read it from the mindset of a first-century Jew (i.e., the guy who wrote it). We can't read that book from a twenty-first century American perspective; to do so just destroys what imagery there is.

The same for the Olivet Discourse; the man who prophesied it was a first-century Jew. He had extensive knowledge of the Old Testament prophets, and was part of a culture that had very symbolically rich prophecy and visions. When He uses plain speech ("You will hear of wars and rumors of wars"), there is no need to "interpret" the words. They're simple and straightforward.

When He uses speech that is significantly different from "plain speech" ("The sun and moon will grow dark, and the stars will fall, and the heavens will be shaken"), then we know something is different about how to read these. After all, a war is a war, but stars falling to earth is tremendous; are the "stars" symbolic of something, are they literal stars, or what? Then it's time to turn to the Old Testament and see how such language was used.

Romulus
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:48 PM
Oh you might want to clarify..partial Preterist so the mod won't takes down your post since full preterist is not allowed.


:cry: It's 2nd grade all over again.........never allowed to play with the other kids........




JUST KIDDING MOONGLOW! :)



Great thread MarkEdward! I wanted to add to your comment on:

Matthew 24,

15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

This, as we all agree was fulfilled when the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem in early 67 A.D. Historically Titus and his legions for no reason whatsoever after surrounding Jerusalem left the city for a short while giving the believers time to escape to the mountains of Pella. This was the last time anyone could escape the coming destruction. Titus then returned in February 67 A.D. and began the 42 month/3.5 year siege of Jerusalem ending in it's destruction.......hmm 42 months, where have we heard that before?

Great Thread!

God Bless! :)

John146
Jun 4th 2008, 08:01 PM
I believe that the Olivet Discourse, including the Coming of the Son of Man, was fulfilled within the lifetimes of the generation Jesus was speaking to. But that does not mean I consider the Coming of the Son of Man was the "Second Coming."

When Christ said that the "coming of the Son of Man" would be "as lightning," I don't think He was meaning that He would suddenly zap onto the earth from a bolt of lightning. I read this statement as meaning it would be bold, and loud, and noticeable.

As I said before, the phrasing of the "coming on the clouds of heaven" says two things, both of which require the Old Testament to interpret. The first is that it was referring to Daniel 7:13-14, where the Son of Man "comes on the clouds" to God to be given His dominion and authority. The second is that the Old Testament used God coming on clouds as prophetic imagery for His coming in judgment.

At His trial, Christ says that when He would come on the clouds, He would come with "great power and glory." The Olivet Discourse uses similar words, but specifically says that the "tribes of the earth" would mourn the coming. Remember the context of the Olivet Discourse (the destruction of the second temple), and that Luke quotes Jesus as saying it would be a "time of vengeance." The disciples' original questions are also significant:

"When shall these things [the destruction of the second temple] be? And what will be the signs of Your coming and of the end of the age?"

When Jesus prophesied about the destruction of the second temple, the disciples immediately began to see it as coinciding with the coming (of the Son of Man) and "the end of the age." Jesus didn't try to dispel or correct this belief, so that He immediately answers their questions tells us just as much as the disciples initially thought: the Coming of the Son of Man and "the end of the age" were events that would take place at the same time as the destruction of the second temple.

What age ended in 70 AD?

Also, it seems you are not taking into account the fact that Luke 21:25-26 speaks about there being "upon the earth distress of nations" just before Christ comes. Did that occur in 70 AD? No. The text indicates the distress of nations happens sometime after the events of 70 AD. It is after that time of tribulation that Christ comes and not after the tribulation that occurred in Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Certainly, some of what Jesus spoke about in the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in 70 AD, but not all, by any means. He did not come in any way, shape or form in 70 AD. And, the angels did not gather the elect in 70 AD, either. As we can see from Matthew 13:24-30,36-43, the angels will gather the elect at the same time that they gather the unbelievers to be burned in the fire. This will be a global event that will happen at the future second coming of Christ at the end of this temporal age.

markedward
Jun 4th 2008, 09:17 PM
What age ended in 70 AD?It's been called by different names; the temple age, the Mosaic Age, the Old Covenant age, etc.

The age that ended was the age in which people approached God through temple sacrifices.


Also, it seems you are not taking into account the fact that Luke 21:25-26 speaks about there being "upon the earth distress of nations" just before Christ comes. Did that occur in 70 AD? No. The text indicates the distress of nations happens sometime after the events of 70 AD. It is after that time of tribulation that Christ comes and not after the tribulation that occurred in Jerusalem in 70 AD.25-26 was Luke's variant of the sun/moon darkening, stars falling, heavens shaking part of Matthew's and Mark's gospels. Again, consistently viewing this type of prophetic language through how it is used in the Old Testament shows that it is judgment being spoken of. And the Old Testament fulfillment of these judgments was one nation over-powering another. In this case, it was the Roman people over-powering the Jewish people, which, again, is consistent with how such prophetic language was used in the Old Testament. This did happen in 70 AD, when the Romans over-powered the Jews.


Certainly, some of what Jesus spoke about in the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in 70 AD, but not all, by any means.Then can you explain Jesus' statement that all the things He had just prophesied (including the Coming of the Son of Man) would happen in "this generation"?

You said that "some of what Jesus spoke" "was fulfilled in 70 AD." Why does the "this generation" statement apply to only some of what Jesus prophesied and not "all" of it (especially since He specifically said "all")?

jeffweeder
Jun 5th 2008, 05:10 AM
Then can you explain Jesus' statement that all the things He had just prophesied (including the Coming of the Son of Man) would happen in "this generation"?

You said that "some of what Jesus spoke" "was fulfilled in 70 AD." Why does the "this generation" statement apply to only some of what Jesus prophesied and not "all" of it (especially since He specifically said "all")?


This would be my explanation-----In blue


"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near.
21 "Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city;
22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.
23 "Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people;
24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations;

(AD 70)

and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Does that mean that the exile will end and Jews will control Jerusalem again?
Sign no 1.

Then at that time-

25 "There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves,
26 men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
27 "Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD with power and great glory.
28 "But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."

So the signs so far are--armies-desolation-exile-gentiles over Jerusalem- return-heavenly signs .

29 Then He told them a parable: "Behold the fig tree and all the trees;
30 as soon as they put forth leaves, you see it and know for yourselves that summer is now near.
31 "So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near.
32 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place.
33 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

So the generation that sees all these signs-like us now, that Generation will not pass away----but you can be sure that heaven and earth will if its the right Generation.

We are the generation that has seen the times of the gentiles end over Jerusalem, AND are witnessing heavenly stuff-

Hawk
Jun 5th 2008, 12:36 PM
Even though I am a futurist, I am actually in agreement with many (but certainly not all) of the things presented by the OP. The Olivet Discourse has always been a heated discussion between preterists and futurists, but the problem with both of these camps when they defend their position is that they are always reactionary to the other in their dissertation.

I believe that Jesus, as a prophet using apocalyptic language (some in His day believed He was Jeremiah), is speaking about both 70AD and the end of the age in the Olivet Discourse. I think it's wrong to assume He's only speaking of one or the other, because as this thread points out, there's clear evidence for a preterist reading. But there's also clear evidence for a futurist reading as demonstrated by many of the other threads on this forum. :)

My question for the OP revolves around Matthew 24:21:

“For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.”
(Matt 24:21 NKJV)

Jesus predicted a time of trouble that would eclipse all other times previously seen as well as all other times to come in the future. It would seem this verse would be a difficult one to apply in a preteristic reading, considering the difficulty of the Jewish people throughout the ages since 70AD (the Holocaust being clear evidence of the greater difficulty of the Jewish people since 70AD).

How do you interpret this verse through the lens of preterism without changing the intensity of the language to somehow "fit" the system?

Hawk

moonglow
Jun 5th 2008, 02:40 PM
This would be my explanation-----In blue



So the generation that sees all these signs-like us now, that Generation will not pass away----but you can be sure that heaven and earth will if its the right Generation.

We are the generation that has seen the times of the gentiles end over Jerusalem, AND are witnessing heavenly stuff-

What Heavenly stuff? And why do so many think its 'our generation'...why not the next generation? Why this one? What's so special about our generation...I never did get that. I have heard this my whole life...it will be in 'our lifetime' and 'this generation'...meanwhile alot of those that said that have since passed away...:hmm:

And I keep getting older....seeing many other new generations come.

God bless

Cyberseeker
Jun 5th 2008, 03:14 PM
I believe that Jesus, as a prophet using apocalyptic language (some in His day believed He was Jeremiah), is speaking about both 70AD and the end of the age in the Olivet Discourse. I think it's wrong to assume He's only speaking of one or the other, because as this thread points out, there's clear evidence for a preterist reading. But there's also clear evidence for a futurist reading as demonstrated by many of the other threads on this forum. :)


Hi Hawk. :) Im sure you are right in this regard. There seems to be initial as well as final fulfillment in prophecy and if preterists and futurists could get their heads together on this aspect it would result in a more satisfactory interpretation IMHO.

RogerW
Jun 5th 2008, 07:15 PM
Even though I am a futurist, I am actually in agreement with many (but certainly not all) of the things presented by the OP. The Olivet Discourse has always been a heated discussion between preterists and futurists, but the problem with both of these camps when they defend their position is that they are always reactionary to the other in their dissertation.

I believe that Jesus, as a prophet using apocalyptic language (some in His day believed He was Jeremiah), is speaking about both 70AD and the end of the age in the Olivet Discourse. I think it's wrong to assume He's only speaking of one or the other, because as this thread points out, there's clear evidence for a preterist reading. But there's also clear evidence for a futurist reading as demonstrated by many of the other threads on this forum. :)

My question for the OP revolves around Matthew 24:21:

“For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.”
(Matt 24:21 NKJV)

Jesus predicted a time of trouble that would eclipse all other times previously seen as well as all other times to come in the future. It would seem this verse would be a difficult one to apply in a preteristic reading, considering the difficulty of the Jewish people throughout the ages since 70AD (the Holocaust being clear evidence of the greater difficulty of the Jewish people since 70AD).

How do you interpret this verse through the lens of preterism without changing the intensity of the language to somehow "fit" the system?

Hawk

Greetings Hawk,

I agree with what you have said here. One of the problems I find with the preteristic view (besides using historians, especially Josephus to support their view) of "great tribulation" being limited to the Jewish Nation is this passage from Rev 7. The passage tells us this great multitude is of all nations, kindreds, people and tongues (not just Jews), and they are those who have come out of great tribulation.

Re 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
Re 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

Re 7:13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
Re 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

While I would agree that great tribulation certainly did come against the Jewish Nation as God used the Roman Army to pour out His wrath upon His chosen people, however great tribulation is NOT limited to the Jews. Great tribulation has been something that Christians throughout the world, and throughout the ages have endured from the beginning.

Many Blessings,
RW

John146
Jun 5th 2008, 09:10 PM
It's been called by different names; the temple age, the Mosaic Age, the Old Covenant age, etc.

The age that ended was the age in which people approached God through temple sacrifices.

When scripture speaks of ages, it speaks of the temporal age and the eternal age to come, when no one will marry any longer. The end of the age has not yet occurred. Do you believe that Matthew 13:24-30,36-43 & 47-50 are fulfilled as well?



25-26 was Luke's variant of the sun/moon darkening, stars falling, heavens shaking part of Matthew's and Mark's gospels. Again, consistently viewing this type of prophetic language through how it is used in the Old Testament shows that it is judgment being spoken of. And the Old Testament fulfillment of these judgments was one nation over-powering another. In this case, it was the Roman people over-powering the Jewish people, which, again, is consistent with how such prophetic language was used in the Old Testament. This did happen in 70 AD, when the Romans over-powered the Jews.Yes, something did happen in one nation in 70 AD, but what is portrayed in Luke 21:25-26 is a global event which it calls the distress of nations. That passage is not speaking of what happened in 70 AD.



Then can you explain Jesus' statement that all the things He had just prophesied (including the Coming of the Son of Man) would happen in "this generation"?This generation refers to a kind of people: the wicked who shed innocent blood. This includes the Pharisees and scribes He had been berating starting in Matthew 23, but also included their fathers before them and even goes all the way back to Cain (Matt 23:35). All of those wicked are included in what Jesus calls "a generation of vipers". That is the term He used for wicked people who shed innocent blood.



You said that "some of what Jesus spoke" "was fulfilled in 70 AD." Why does the "this generation" statement apply to only some of what Jesus prophesied and not "all" of it (especially since He specifically said "all")?It doesn't apply only to some of it. It applies to all of it. That's the only logical thing we can conclude, that He was speaking about everything He had just said previously. You have that part correct. But "this generation" does not refer to a 40-year time period. It refers to all those who shed innocent blood throughout history, beginning with Cain killing Abel (Matt 23:35). It refers to a type of people: wicked people who are out for themselves and will even kill the innocent if they have to in order to retain their positions of power.

When the generation of wicked and rebellious people pass away, that is when heaven and earth will pass away. That is what He is implying in Matthew 24:34-35. When He returns in the future, He will destroy all unbelievers and burn up the current heavens and earth and bring in the new heavens and new earth (2 Peter 3:10-13). Luke 21:35 says, "For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.". Clearly, this is speaking of a global event, which the second coming of Christ certainly will be.

Jesus said in Matthew 24:36 regarding His coming: "But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.". How did that apply to 70 AD? He said the same thing in Matthew 25:13. Do you think Matthew 25:1-13 was fulfilled in 70 AD as well?

One other thing is that it says in Mark 13:27, "then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.". That did not happen in 70 AD. Once again we see a description of a global event. This is clearly speaking of the time when the dead in Christ will be resurrected and along with all those who are alive and remain will be changed and then caught up to meet the Lord in the air. How can Matthew 24:29-31/Mark 13:26-27/Luke 21:25-28 be speaking of anything but what Paul spoke about here:

7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. - 2 Thess 1:7-10

Do you believe 2 Thess 1:7-10 has been fulfilled, too?

BroRog
Jun 5th 2008, 09:42 PM
Even though I am a futurist, I am actually in agreement with many (but certainly not all) of the things presented by the OP. The Olivet Discourse has always been a heated discussion between preterists and futurists, but the problem with both of these camps when they defend their position is that they are always reactionary to the other in their dissertation.

I believe that Jesus, as a prophet using apocalyptic language (some in His day believed He was Jeremiah), is speaking about both 70AD and the end of the age in the Olivet Discourse. I think it's wrong to assume He's only speaking of one or the other, because as this thread points out, there's clear evidence for a preterist reading. But there's also clear evidence for a futurist reading as demonstrated by many of the other threads on this forum. :)

My question for the OP revolves around Matthew 24:21:

“For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.”
(Matt 24:21 NKJV)

Jesus predicted a time of trouble that would eclipse all other times previously seen as well as all other times to come in the future. It would seem this verse would be a difficult one to apply in a preteristic reading, considering the difficulty of the Jewish people throughout the ages since 70AD (the Holocaust being clear evidence of the greater difficulty of the Jewish people since 70AD).

How do you interpret this verse through the lens of preterism without changing the intensity of the language to somehow "fit" the system?

Hawk

Hawk, I used to think that Jesus was speaking about the intensity of the GT because that is how it was taught to me at first. But when I studied the passage for myself, being careful not to import my previous understanding into it, I realized that Jesus didn't actually talk about the "intensity" of the GT. Literally, his words speak about the duration of the GT.

He says that the GT will be like no other that came before. But he doesn't say, "It will be the most intense suffering of all time" or anything like that. Rather, he says, "if the time was not cut short, no flesh would be left alive." (I'm quickly paraphrasing from memory.) Since I used to think that the GT was a worldwide event of intense suffering and death, I took him to mean something like, "the GT will be so intense that if it went on longer, the entire human race would be extinct."

During my studies, I decided to investigate passages in the OT to look for really intense events that threatened human extinction. My mind immediately flashed on the flood. The flood was an event that threatened human existence to the point that only 8 people were left. That's VERY close to extinction. And while others have pointed out the fact that more people will die in the Trumpet and Bowl judgments than died in the flood event, even at that, humanity will not be in danger of extinction. The only event I can think of that threatened total human annihilation was the flood.

This led me to investigate Luke's account of the same events in which he speaks about the tribulation in terms of "distress upon the land and wrath to this people." This led me to understand that the GT did not have worldwide effect, but local effect on a particular land and people. It occurred to me that when Jesus spoke of "all flesh" he meant "all Jewish flesh" because his focus was on his own people and the land where they lived.

And so, if I am right about that, then not only does 70AD fit into that scenario, but so does the Holocaust, and the pogroms, and all other antisemitic acts of hatred down through the years since Jesus left the earth.

jeffweeder
Jun 5th 2008, 10:09 PM
What Heavenly stuff?

Like man on the moon, space shuttles, satelliates, spacecraft on asteroids and Mars, hubble soho etc........


And why do so many think its 'our generation'...why not the next generation? Why this one? What's so special about our generation...I never did get that

Because of the signs that Jesus gave.(please read post again)

He said that the times of gentiles trampling Jerusalem would end right.?
Those times started with their exile in 70 AD , i am suggesting that they were finished in 1967, when the Jews took the city again-for the first time since 70AD.

2 years later man was on the moon etc.

Jesus finishes his discourse by saying--when you see all these things (signs) ,that Generation would not pass away. Are we that Gen?

Just a thought

markedward
Jun 6th 2008, 08:29 PM
Jesus finishes his discourse by saying--when you see all these things (signs) ,that Generation would not pass away. Are we that Gen?No, Jesus did not say "that generation." He said "this generation." Don't change what Jesus said.

Jesus quite plainly stated "this generation." The Greek word for "this" is houtos. The same Greek word is used again in the same sentence, for "these things." It is a word used in the very same way we use the English words "this" or "these." When Jesus said "this generation," it makes no sense to interpret His meaning as "that generation," just as it would make no sense to interpret His meaning of "these things" as "those things." When Jesus spoke of "these things" He was referring to the prophecies He had just spoken, the prophecies that were that present context of the Discourse. Likewise, when Jesus spoke of "this generation" He was referring to the generation He was living in, the generation that was alive at that present moment.

jeffweeder
Jun 7th 2008, 02:32 AM
Mark
Jesus said when you see all these things.
They didnt see the times of the Gentiles fulfilled--nor the stars falling.
Was it like the days of Noah in 70 AD ,where only the righteous survived??

Can you comment on --until the times of the gentiles over Jerusalem are fulfilled -
What do you think it means, and was it one of the signs -(these things)?

moonglow
Jun 7th 2008, 08:32 PM
[QUOTE=jeffweeder;1662493]Like man on the moon, space shuttles, satelliates, spacecraft on asteroids and Mars, hubble soho etc........

I certainly don't think Jesus meant Heavenly things like men landing on the moon, etc. at all...if anything in the Heavenly things were the stars falling, moon and sun not giving light, etc...which aren't to be taken literally...but you aren't even seeing that. This is truly reading things into scriptures that aren't there at all...nor even hinted at...:confused



Because of the signs that Jesus gave.(please read post again)

He said that the times of gentiles trampling Jerusalem would end right.?
Those times started with their exile in 70 AD , i am suggesting that they were finished in 1967, when the Jews took the city again-for the first time since 70AD.

If the Jews were no longer in Jerusalem they couldn't be trampled now could they? :hmm: Jerusalem was destroyed then.


2 years later man was on the moon etc.

Jesus finishes his discourse by saying--when you see all these things (signs) ,that Generation would not pass away. Are we that Gen?

Just a thought

If I went just by your post and had no other facts I would have to say THE generation was in generation of the 1960's...after the six day war and man walking on the moon...IF I thought those fit the bible...then its obvious THAT generation would have been it.

But we know the 60's generation isn't it...don't we?

Mark is right...the word 'that generation' was never used...it was 'this' generation and who was Jesus talking to at that time? To His generation. Not some future generation. Not all Jews have returned to Israel by any means anyway and many are leaving and have been for years...who wants to live in a violent filled city anyway with suicide bombers...never knowing if when you sent your child out to school if you would ever see them again? I know I wouldn't want to live there. :(

God bless

jeffweeder
Jun 8th 2008, 12:16 PM
If the Jews were no longer in Jerusalem they couldn't be trampled now could they? Jerusalem was destroyed then.

Im sorry moonglow but Jesus said that Jews would be exiled and then Jerusalem would be trampled underfoot by Gentiles-until the time they trampled it no more.
So i will ask the question again..

.what does "the times of the gentiles over Jerusalem are fulfilled" mean..?

.keeping in context with them being exiled in the previous verse.

I see that as Jerusalem being lberated from Gentile powers, and i see only one date we can apply to its fulfillment.
Around this same time we have the knowledge explosion, the bomb, and wonders in the heavens and UN opposition to the restored Jewish status of Jerusalem, which will lead to Armageddon.---Joel 3-Dan 12....Etc........
Jesus is so close i can almost see his shadow.

moonglow
Jun 8th 2008, 03:51 PM
Im sorry moonglow but Jesus said that Jews would be exiled and then Jerusalem would be trampled underfoot by Gentiles-until the time they trampled it no more.
So i will ask the question again..

.what does "the times of the gentiles over Jerusalem are fulfilled" mean..?

.keeping in context with them being exiled in the previous verse.

I see that as Jerusalem being lberated from Gentile powers, and i see only one date we can apply to its fulfillment.
Around this same time we have the knowledge explosion, the bomb, and wonders in the heavens and UN opposition to the restored Jewish status of Jerusalem, which will lead to Armageddon.---Joel 3-Dan 12....Etc........
Jesus is so close i can almost see his shadow.

Oh how I wish we were seeing His shadow!

WHEN AND WHAT ARE THE "TIMES OF THE GENTILES"? (http://mikeblume.com/timesgen.htm)
Look at the biblical instances in which this period of time is noted, and notice the association applied to it.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Revelation 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months . (This verse is noted because the duration of time for the Gentiles to tread Jerusalem underfoot is indicated here, and directly relates to Jesus' words in Luke 21:24 concerning the "times of the gentiles". )

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

These are the only verses that mention this issue.

Please note that Revelation 11:2 associates the times of the gentiles with destruction upon the city of Jerusalem. And it says that siege will last 3.5 years. This is precisely how long it took Rome to destroy Jerusalem, which ended in 70 AD! In Luke 21:24, Jesus also associated the times of the gentiles with the destruction of Jerusalem . Had nobody read any views of many concerning the "times of the Gentiles," no one would ever guess that such a term in the Bible is synonymous with the period of salvation for the Gentiles exclusively (with the exception of a few Jews here and there, like the early disciples). The Apostles said nothing about times of the gentiles being the church age!

Luke 21 mentions the times of the gentiles in lieu of the Jerusalem destruction, which occurred in 70AD. Jesus said that Jerusalem would be trodden down until this period is fulfilled. Jesus said those were the days of vengeance. Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies and that would signal the church to flee. So when this siege would be over, the times of the Gentiles would be completed. And Revelation 11 says the duration would be 3.5 years. Think about it. The gentiles would do the treading. And Rome indeed tread down Jerusalem for 3.5 years. And Jesus said that would be the end of the times of the gentiles.

The Romans were the Gentile power of the earth at this time.

So what is the times of the gentiles? Its the period God used Gentile nations to afflict Jerusalem! This occurred since Old Testament times.

Daniel's vision of the four gentile kingdoms (not five) spoke of the very same thing! Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and finally Rome, all afflicted Jerusalem throughout history. But it would end in 70 AD. Those years would be fulfilled in 70 AD. One of the first elements that caught my attention, and pointed me in this direction, was the discovery that Rome took precisely 3.5 years to tread down Jerusalem, and it ended in 70 AD, as Revelation 11:2 noted! Read the rest at the link.

God bless

Cyberseeker
Jun 8th 2008, 04:01 PM
Daniel's vision of the four gentile kingdoms (not five) spoke of the very same thing! Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and finally Rome, all afflicted Jerusalem throughout history. But it would end in 70 AD.

:hmm: But the Romans were tramping around Jerusalem long after AD70 Moonglow. Not to mention the Muslims.

moonglow
Jun 8th 2008, 04:24 PM
:hmm: But the Romans were tramping around Jerusalem long after AD70 Moonglow. Not to mention the Muslims.

Yes I know and for all we know it could happen again and again and again...but the verses in question do not cover this..

Revelation 11:2

2 But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months

This was fulfilled.

The verses we are dealing with only cover a certain time period...if there are others covering future tramplings outside of these, then those can be discussed.

God bless

RogerW
Jun 8th 2008, 05:44 PM
[quote]

I certainly don't think Jesus meant Heavenly things like men landing on the moon, etc. at all...if anything in the Heavenly things were the stars falling, moon and sun not giving light, etc...which aren't to be taken literally...but you aren't even seeing that. This is truly reading things into scriptures that aren't there at all...nor even hinted at...:confused

If the Jews were no longer in Jerusalem they couldn't be trampled now could they? :hmm: Jerusalem was destroyed then.

If I went just by your post and had no other facts I would have to say THE generation was in generation of the 1960's...after the six day war and man walking on the moon...IF I thought those fit the bible...then its obvious THAT generation would have been it.

But we know the 60's generation isn't it...don't we?

Mark is right...the word 'that generation' was never used...it was 'this' generation and who was Jesus talking to at that time? To His generation. Not some future generation. Not all Jews have returned to Israel by any means anyway and many are leaving and have been for years...who wants to live in a violent filled city anyway with suicide bombers...never knowing if when you sent your child out to school if you would ever see them again? I know I wouldn't want to live there. :(

God bless

No, Moonglow! Christ was speaking to "this generation"; i.e. those living at that time, but not consisting of only those living at that time, because Christ was speaking to "this generation", i.e. adulterous generation, evil generation of vipers, evil generation or their father the devil. Now "this generation" spans all time, and will not pass away until the Second Coming of Christ in glory.

Many Blessings,
RW

moonglow
Jun 8th 2008, 06:24 PM
[quote=moonglow;1664595]

No, Moonglow! Christ was speaking to "this generation"; i.e. those living at that time, but not consisting of only those living at that time, because Christ was speaking to "this generation", i.e. adulterous generation, evil generation of vipers, evil generation or their father the devil. Now "this generation" spans all time, and will not pass away until the Second Coming of Christ in glory.

Many Blessings,
RW

Since when does any generation last two thousand years? Who was Jesus talking too at that time? The Jews...right? He condemned them (the rejecting Jews), in Matthew 23...no where does He suggest any generation after that one is also condemned to suffer the wrath of God? It was THAT generation that reject Him. It makes no sense to say that generation then go on to say it expands to future generations also. You would need to show scriptures that show this also involves future generation AND people other then the Jews.

God bless

markedward
Jun 8th 2008, 06:25 PM
No, Moonglow! Christ was speaking to "this generation"; i.e. those living at that time, but not consisting of only those living at that time, because Christ was speaking to "this generation", i.e. adulterous generation, evil generation of vipers, evil generation or their father the devil. Now "this generation" spans all time, and will not pass away until the Second Coming of Christ in glory.That doesn't even make sense. The very definition of "generation" limits it to the lifetimes of just that, a single generation. Do you think the disciples understood "generation," a word that actually has a definition of a "time limit" of sorts meant a perpetual, on-going group of people?

Why would Christ even use the word "generation?"

The whole Olivet Discourse was a response to the disciples question of "When," so if Christ didn't answer them with a time-related answer (i.e., the idea that "generation" didn't refer to a set period of time), then Christ would only have been misleading them with His response.

If it is how you say, it would've been easier for Christ to answer "When" with "People will be alive."

Matthew 23 contains the seven woes upon the pharisees. At the end, Christ said "This generation" would suffer the consequences of all of the deaths since the beginning of time, including Abel.

Do you see what Christ was saying? He wasn't saying "Generically wicked people in the distant future are going to suffer the consequences of the persecution of righteousness." He was saying "This specific wicked generation [time limit] is going to suffer the consequences for the persecution of righteousness," including the for the murders of "Abel" (at the beginning of time) up through "Zecharaiah" that the pharisees themselves had murdered. Christ was saying judgment would come upon them, that very generation of evil-doers. The seven woes would have had little relevance to pharisees that haven't been alive for a couple thousand years if the fulfillment was in our future, so in that case, why prophecy it over their heads, their "generation," their "house?"

The very nature of Christ's words and who He was prophesying to demands a fulfillment for them. Otherwise, why would He use a time-limiting word of "generation" that the disciples would only have interpreted as their own generation if that wasn't what He meant?

This (singular) generation (singular). Not these (plural) generations (plural).

RogerW
Jun 8th 2008, 08:48 PM
That doesn't even make sense. The very definition of "generation" limits it to the lifetimes of just that, a single generation. Do you think the disciples understood "generation," a word that actually has a definition of a "time limit" of sorts meant a perpetual, on-going group of people?

Why would Christ even use the word "generation?"

The whole Olivet Discourse was a response to the disciples question of "When," so if Christ didn't answer them with a time-related answer (i.e., the idea that "generation" didn't refer to a set period of time), then Christ would only have been misleading them with His response.

If it is how you say, it would've been easier for Christ to answer "When" with "People will be alive."

Matthew 23 contains the seven woes upon the pharisees. At the end, Christ said "This generation" would suffer the consequences of all of the deaths since the beginning of time, including Abel.

Do you see what Christ was saying? He wasn't saying "Generically wicked people in the distant future are going to suffer the consequences of the persecution of righteousness." He was saying "This specific wicked generation [time limit] is going to suffer the consequences for the persecution of righteousness," including the for the murders of "Abel" (at the beginning of time) up through "Zecharaiah" that the pharisees themselves had murdered. Christ was saying judgment would come upon them, that very generation of evil-doers. The seven woes would have had little relevance to pharisees that haven't been alive for a couple thousand years if the fulfillment was in our future, so in that case, why prophecy it over their heads, their "generation," their "house?"

The very nature of Christ's words and who He was prophesying to demands a fulfillment for them. Otherwise, why would He use a time-limiting word of "generation" that the disciples would only have interpreted as their own generation if that wasn't what He meant?

This (singular) generation (singular). Not these (plural) generations (plural).

Greetings Markedward & Moonglow,

Remember the thread “Why doesn’t Mt 24:32-34 disprove preterism?” Let me refresh your memory because I have already answered the questions you both have regarding "this generation." You'll find in reply #29 of this thread that Eric has also answered this.

Originally Posted by markedward [/URL]
At least in the case of the Discourse, when Jesus spoke of "generation," He wasn't speaking of a type of people ("perverse" or "chosen"), He was using the word in its normal definitional sense: a time period based upon the age of those living in it.

When He spoke of "this generation" He was using it as a specifically temporal term, not a perpetual type of people as you seem to be suggesting. At least two other verses verify that Jesus was restricting His prophecies to an amount of time, not a type of people.

That's easy enough to confirm. We should be able to go to various verses that speak to a specific generation of people and find confirmation that the generation in view is addressed only to people living within that time reference. However, if we find verses that show us that a generation is not limited to a specific time of those living in it, but to a generation of evil doers, or even a chosen people, then it makes your assumption, "a time period based upon the age of those living in it" wrong.

Luke 11:50-51 "That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;" From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

The generation, standing there were not those guilty of the blood of all the prophets from Abel to Zacarias. How could their blood be required of the generation Christ was speaking to? The disciples who also stood there won’t have the blood of the prophets required of them. So how is the blood of Abel and all the prophets required of “this generation” that Christ spoke to? Because the generation of evil were part of “this generation” of which Christ spoke, but they were not limited to those standing there, the generation of evil spans human history.

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Certainly we cannot limit a chosen generation to those who lived at that time. All who become saved, throughout redemptive history are among the chosen generation.

Matthew 12:32-35 "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things."

Jesus is clearly telling us that they are part of a particular spiritual family group, and identifies their father as the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning. So Satan is the father reference for this generation or family. And he has many children, not just these whom Christ was immediately speaking to. All those under Satan's control are the generation or kindred of evil, which has existed from the beginning, and who are under the judgment of God. In Biblical terms, they are the spiritual offspring or generation of their father reference, that old serpent, Satan. The phrase 'generation of vipers' identifies only that seed or family group who serve their father Satan, not everyone in that physical time period.

Originally Posted by markedward (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1656818 / post1656818)
These three passages each have two things in common:

1 - The Coming of the Son of Man
2 - A limitation of time to when the Coming will occur

Mt 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Mt 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mr 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Lu 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

When we read the corresponding passages of Christ instructing His disciples, we find Christ telling them that they will be persecuted, and even killed for His name sake, and that some of them, who are standing there will not die until they see the Son of man coming in the kingdom of God with power.

When did Christ come and establish the kingdom of God with power? Not AD 70, but at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was sent with power.

Lu 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Ac 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Originally Posted by markedward Second, each of these verses places a specific time frame for when the Coming of the Son of Man would happen. First, Jesus told His disciples that when they were persecuted, that they were to flee from one city to another and that they wouldn't be able to reach all of the cities of Israel before the Coming. Second, Jesus told His disciples that some of the people standing right around Him would not die before the Coming had occurred; by now, everyone standing around Him had died. Third, Jesus told His disciples that the Coming would occur within the lifetime of their generation; their generation has died out.


I agree there is a certain time frame, but these verses are not speaking of the coming of Christ, but rather for the coming of His kingdom in power. Christ ushered in the Kingdom when He came to earth a man, but the Kingdom did not come with power until after Christ went to the cross, and defeated Satan and death. The Kingdom of God could not come with power as long as Satan was un-opposed. But Christ promised that after His death and resurrection the Kingdom of God would come, and sending His Holy Spirit at Pentecost established His Kingdom with all Authority and Power.

If you notice in the verses in question it says they would "see" the Son of man coming in His Kingdom with power. This word "see" is translated from the Greek word eido and means to know or be aware, to understand. So these verses are telling us some there would not die until they perceive, or understand that the Kingdom of God has come with power. What does this matter? Compare this "see" to "see" in Mt. 24:30.

Mt 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

You tell us this happened in AD 70, but the Greek word translated "see" in this verse is optanomai and means to gaze with wide-open eyes, as at something remarkable. When Christ comes again it will not be spiritually as the Preterists tell us, it will be something that all the peoples of the earth will literally see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markedward [URL="http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1656818 / post1656818"] (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1656818 / post1656818)It shouldn't be this hard to see that Jesus was making specific time-restrictions to when the Coming of the Son of Man would occur. He kept saying that it would happen within a specific amount of time, not that it was supposed to be perpetually imminent.


You are confusing the coming of the Kingdom with power and the coming again of the Son of man. Yes, Christ did make specific time restrictions about His Coming. He tells us it is the last day, in the fullness of time!

Many Blessings,
RW

moonglow
Jun 8th 2008, 09:48 PM
Greetings Roger... I fell behind on that thread you are referring too...summertime and things going on ..hard to keep up with long threads like that. Whether I read the post you are referring too or not...I couldn't say, but thanks for reposting it.


Greetings Markedward & Moonglow,

Remember the thread “Why doesn’t Mt 24:32-34 disprove preterism?” Let me refresh your memory because I have already answered the questions you both have regarding "this generation." You'll find in reply #29 of this thread that Eric has also answered this.

Originally Posted by markedward [/URL]
At least in the case of the Discourse, when Jesus spoke of "generation," He wasn't speaking of a type of people ("perverse" or "chosen"), He was using the word in its normal definitional sense: a time period based upon the age of those living in it.

When He spoke of "this generation" He was using it as a specifically temporal term, not a perpetual type of people as you seem to be suggesting. At least two other verses verify that Jesus was restricting His prophecies to an amount of time, not a type of people.

That's easy enough to confirm. We should be able to go to various verses that speak to a specific generation of people and find confirmation that the generation in view is addressed only to people living within that time reference. However, if we find verses that show us that a generation is not limited to a specific time of those living in it, but to a generation of evil doers, or even a chosen people, then it makes your assumption, "a time period based upon the age of those living in it" wrong.

Luke 11:50-51 "That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;" From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

The generation, standing there were not those guilty of the blood of all the prophets from Abel to Zacarias. How could their blood be required of the generation Christ was speaking to? The disciples who also stood there won’t have the blood of the prophets required of them. So how is the blood of Abel and all the prophets required of “this generation” that Christ spoke to? Because the generation of evil were part of “this generation” of which Christ spoke, but they were not limited to those standing there, the generation of evil spans human history.

Ok stop here, you JUST posted a verse showing Jesus said 'this generation WILL pay the price'...even emphasize it and yet you say it doesn't say what it said? :confused It clearly says 'this generation' several times in the verses you posted. Yet you say He didn't mean them. Very confusing.

Who was Jesus talking about in Matthew 23? He wasn't talking about the disciples or the others gathered there...it says this: 1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a]that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

And He goes on referring to the The scribes and the Pharisees as 'they' over and over again...He never says, you disciples, or you here sitting with me...the reader never has any confusion over who He is talking about at all.


1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Certainly we cannot limit a chosen generation to those who lived at that time. All who become saved, throughout redemptive history are among the chosen generation.

He wasn't speaking about them being saved as in being saved spiritual through Jesus as we all are, he was talking about them being saved from the judgment to come...which historical evidence shows us that the believers heeded the warnings Jesus gave and fled Judea when they saw the city surrounded by the Roman army. That was what they were saved from! From the wrath of God. These first Christians were special and chosen in this sense. The first generation of believers.


Matthew 12:32-35 "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things."

Jesus is clearly telling us that they are part of a particular spiritual family group, and identifies their father as the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning. So Satan is the father reference for this generation or family. And he has many children, not just these whom Christ was immediately speaking to. All those under Satan's control are the generation or kindred of evil, which has existed from the beginning, and who are under the judgment of God. In Biblical terms, they are the spiritual offspring or generation of their father reference, that old serpent, Satan. The phrase 'generation of vipers' identifies only that seed or family group who serve their father Satan, not everyone in that physical time period.

Originally Posted by markedward (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1656818 / post1656818)
These three passages each have two things in common:

1 - The Coming of the Son of Man
2 - A limitation of time to when the Coming will occur

Mt 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Mt 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mr 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Lu 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

When we read the corresponding passages of Christ instructing His disciples, we find Christ telling them that they will be persecuted, and even killed for His name sake, and that some of them, who are standing there will not die until they see the Son of man coming in the kingdom of God with power.

When did Christ come and establish the kingdom of God with power? Not AD 70, but at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was sent with power.



But neither mark or I were talking about the this..we were discussing what 'this generation' meant only. Yet you think we are confusing the two when we hadn't brought up this up??? I agree they are two seperate things...never said the coming of the Son of Man was the same as the coming of the kingdom of God.


Lu 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Ac 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Originally Posted by markedward Second, each of these verses places a specific time frame for when the Coming of the Son of Man would happen. First, Jesus told His disciples that when they were persecuted, that they were to flee from one city to another and that they wouldn't be able to reach all of the cities of Israel before the Coming. Second, Jesus told His disciples that some of the people standing right around Him would not die before the Coming had occurred; by now, everyone standing around Him had died. Third, Jesus told His disciples that the Coming would occur within the lifetime of their generation; their generation has died out.


I agree there is a certain time frame, but these verses are not speaking of the coming of Christ, but rather for the coming of His kingdom in power. Christ ushered in the Kingdom when He came to earth a man, but the Kingdom did not come with power until after Christ went to the cross, and defeated Satan and death. The Kingdom of God could not come with power as long as Satan was un-opposed. But Christ promised that after His death and resurrection the Kingdom of God would come, and sending His Holy Spirit at Pentecost established His Kingdom with all Authority and Power.


I agree.


If you notice in the verses in question it says they would "see" the Son of man coming in His Kingdom with power. This word "see" is translated from the Greek word eido and means to know or be aware, to understand. So these verses are telling us some there would not die until they perceive, or understand that the Kingdom of God has come with power. What does this matter? Compare this "see" to "see" in Mt. 24:30.

Mt 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

You tell us this happened in AD 70, but the Greek word translated "see" in this verse is optanomai and means to gaze with wide-open eyes, as at something remarkable. When Christ comes again it will not be spiritually as the Preterists tell us, it will be something that all the peoples of the earth will literally see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markedward [URL="http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1656818 / post1656818"] (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1656818 / post1656818)It shouldn't be this hard to see that Jesus was making specific time-restrictions to when the Coming of the Son of Man would occur. He kept saying that it would happen within a specific amount of time, not that it was supposed to be perpetually imminent.


You are confusing the coming of the Kingdom with power and the coming again of the Son of man. Yes, Christ did make specific time restrictions about His Coming. He tells us it is the last day, in the fullness of time!

Many Blessings,
RW

It seems to me you are the one talking about two different things here and think we are too...at least I wasn't. I was only talking about what this generation meant in recent posts on here, nothing more.

God bless

RogerW
Jun 9th 2008, 12:53 AM
Ok stop here, you JUST posted a verse showing Jesus said 'this generation WILL pay the price'...even emphasize it and yet you say it doesn't say what it said? :confused It clearly says 'this generation' several times in the verses you posted. Yet you say He didn't mean them. Very confusing.

Who was Jesus talking about in Matthew 23? He wasn't talking about the disciples or the others gathered there...it says this: 1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a]that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

And He goes on referring to the The scribes and the Pharisees as 'they' over and over again...He never says, you disciples, or you here sitting with me...the reader never has any confusion over who He is talking about at all.

Greetings Moonglow,

I've having a little trouble understanding what you aren't clear on, so let me try this again. Yes, it does say that the blood of all the prophets is required of "this generation". You are right, Christ is speaking to the scribes and pharisees, not His disciples. How does Christ elsewhere define these same scribes and pharisees?

Mt 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Mt 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

Mt 12:45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

Mt 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

When Christ says the blood of all the prophets shed from the foundation of the world is required of this generation, is He limiting this prophesy to only those scribes and pharisees standing there? NO! How could He be since He says "the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world." The scribes and pharisees Christ is speaking to are not the ones who killed ALL the prophets from the foundation of the world. How could they be, since they have not lived from the foundation of the world? So, clearly when Christ speaks of this generation (scribes & pharisees) of vipers, or this wicked generation, He is not limiting "this generation" to only those scribes and pharisees standing there. This evil and adulterous generation speaks to EVERY unbeliever (evil generation) in every age. "This generation" is not speaking of the time when these people live, but the type; i.e. evil, adulterous generation of people they are. This generation (evil, adulterous) will not pass away until the fullness of time, and all things are fulfilled.

Luke 11:50-51 "That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;" From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.



He wasn't speaking about them being saved as in being saved spiritual through Jesus as we all are, he was talking about them being saved from the judgment to come...which historical evidence shows us that the believers heeded the warnings Jesus gave and fled Judea when they saw the city surrounded by the Roman army. That was what they were saved from! From the wrath of God. These first Christians were special and chosen in this sense. The first generation of believers.

The chosen generation is speaking to every believer throughout the ages. Paul was writing to the universal Church in time when he penned these words:

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

In no way is Paul limiting "chosen generation" to first century Christians.

Many Blessings,
RW

moonglow
Jun 9th 2008, 02:31 AM
RogerW

Greetings Moonglow,

I've having a little trouble understanding what you aren't clear on, so let me try this again. Yes, it does say that the blood of all the prophets is required of "this generation". You are right, Christ is speaking to the scribes and pharisees, not His disciples. How does Christ elsewhere define these same scribes and pharisees?

Mt 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Mt 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

Mt 12:45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

Mt 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

When Christ says the blood of all the prophets shed from the foundation of the world is required of this generation, is He limiting this prophesy to only those scribes and pharisees standing there? NO! How could He be since He says "the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world." The scribes and pharisees Christ is speaking to are not the ones who killed ALL the prophets from the foundation of the world. How could they be, since they have not lived from the foundation of the world? So, clearly when Christ speaks of this generation (scribes & pharisees) of vipers, or this wicked generation, He is not limiting "this generation" to only those scribes and pharisees standing there. This evil and adulterous generation speaks to EVERY unbeliever (evil generation) in every age. "This generation" is not speaking of the time when these people live, but the type; i.e. evil, adulterous generation of people they are. This generation (evil, adulterous) will not pass away until the fullness of time, and all things are fulfilled.

Luke 11:50-51 "That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;" From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Sorry Roger...all I see is you reconfirming it was that generation Jesus was speaking of. I see you not introduction any other scriptures showing this goes beyond that generation of Jews. I only see you adding your own thoughts to it with no scriptures backing it up....no evidence so to speak that this extended beyond that generation.

It just seems like to me you are saying these men could not have killed all these prophets in the past so it can't be right for Jesus to condemn just this generation....but these men were descendants of those that did kill the past prophets all the way back to Able.

Matthew 23
29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’
31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt.

Coffman Commentaries (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=023)
Verse 30
And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we should not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

Loud professions of moral rectitude on the part of the Pharisees did not conceal their moral leprosy from Jesus. At that very moment, they were plotting to kill him; and, before the week ended, they would commit a crime against the Lord of Life in a manner so revolting and hateful that all succeeding generations would hold it to be the crime of the ages. Whereas others had slain God's messengers, they would slay his SON!

In other words, this had been coming for a long, long time. And God's cup was finally full to the brim.


The chosen generation is speaking to every believer throughout the ages. Paul was writing to the universal Church in time when he penned these words:

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

In no way is Paul limiting "chosen generation" to first century Christians.

Many Blessings,
RW

I think you misunderstood me here...if I thought only that generation could be saved and no other, I certainly couldn't call myself a Christian...I would think I had no chance of being saved at all if I believed that! I was talking about that being the first generation of Christians...its kind of like having your first child...the first born...its always special. You are the one trying to tie in that generation of believers with the generation of those to suffer the wrath of God saying, if only that generation could be condemned, then the same goes for only one generation being saved....and I don't see the two as having anything to do with each other. One is not needed to be exclusive while the other isn't. Why can't God pour His wrath out on one generation while offering salvation to all generations?

God bless

RogerW
Jun 9th 2008, 02:55 AM
Sorry Roger...all I see is you reconfirming it was that generation Jesus was speaking of. I see you not introduction any other scriptures showing this goes beyond that generation of Jews. I only see you adding your own thoughts to it with no scriptures backing it up....no evidence so to speak that this extended beyond that generation.

It just seems like to me you are saying these men could not have killed all these prophets in the past so it can't be right for Jesus to condemn just this generation....but these men were descendants of those that did kill the past prophets all the way back to Able.

Matthew 23
29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’
31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt.

Coffman Commentaries (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=023)
Verse 30
And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we should not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

Loud professions of moral rectitude on the part of the Pharisees did not conceal their moral leprosy from Jesus. At that very moment, they were plotting to kill him; and, before the week ended, they would commit a crime against the Lord of Life in a manner so revolting and hateful that all succeeding generations would hold it to be the crime of the ages. Whereas others had slain God's messengers, they would slay his SON!

In other words, this had been coming for a long, long time. And God's cup was finally full to the brim.

Exactly! They are no different then their fathers, who were of the evil, adulterous generation preceding them. They are all, fathers and sons, guilty before God of all the innocent blood shed from the foundation of the earth. Therefore they are all themselves, their fathers before them, as well as every unbeliver after them of "this generation." Christ is speaking to those of the generation of evil, and likening them to "this generation" of evil doers.



I think you misunderstood me here...if I thought only that generation could be saved and no other, I certainly couldn't call myself a Christian...I would think I had no chance of being saved at all if I believed that! I was talking about that being the first generation of Christians...its kind of like having your first child...the first born...its always special. You are the one trying to tie in that generation of believers with the generation of those to suffer the wrath of God saying, if only that generation could be condemned, then the same goes for only one generation being saved....and I don't see the two as having anything to do with each other. One is not needed to be exclusive while the other isn't. Why can't God pour His wrath out on one generation while offering salvation to all generations?

God bless

This is exactly my point. Christ is literally speaking to those living in His own generation, but He is not limiting His wrath or salvation to His generation alone. Christ will pour out His wrath on "this generation" of evil doers (every unbeliever), and at the same time He will bring salvation to "this generation" (the chosen). They are all likened to "this generation", but within this generation we find both an adulterous generation, and a chosen generation. Christ tells us that "this generation"...speaking of the adulterous generation will not pass away until all things have been fulfilled. He cannot be speaking of the chosen generation (His disciples) because they have been given eternal life, and therefore they will never pass away.

Many Blessings,
RW

moonglow
Jun 9th 2008, 03:22 AM
Exactly! They are no different then their fathers, who were of the evil, adulterous generation preceding them. They are all, fathers and sons, guilty before God of all the innocent blood shed from the foundation of the earth. Therefore they are all themselves, their fathers before them, as well as every unbeliver after them of "this generation." Christ is speaking to those of the generation of evil, and likening them to "this generation" of evil doers.



This is exactly my point. Christ is literally speaking to those living in His own generation, but He is not limiting His wrath or salvation to His generation alone. Christ will pour out His wrath on "this generation" of evil doers (every unbeliever), and at the same time He will bring salvation to "this generation" (the chosen). They are all likened to "this generation", but within this generation we find both an adulterous generation, and a chosen generation. Christ tells us that "this generation"...speaking of the adulterous generation will not pass away until all things have been fulfilled. He cannot be speaking of the chosen generation (His disciples) because they have been given eternal life, and therefore they will never pass away.

Many Blessings,
RW

Roger I feel like we are speaking two different languages here and not connecting with each other at al. I honestly do not see how you think this extents beyond that generation in regards to the wrath of God being poured out on them...especially since there was a time limit going on.

I don't get your reasoning here at all. sorry.

God bless

BroRog
Jun 9th 2008, 04:25 AM
Yes I know and for all we know it could happen again and again and again...but the verses in question do not cover this..

Revelation 11:2

2 But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months

This was fulfilled.

The verses we are dealing with only cover a certain time period...if there are others covering future tramplings outside of these, then those can be discussed.

God bless

While I understand your taking the 42 months as literal months, I think the others are right that a time limit, no matter how long, has an end. Assuming your view is correct, the duration of Gentile treading ended 42 months after the Roman army broke down the walls and destroyed the Temple -- a long time ago. Evidence that would support your view would be the fact that Gentiles were no longer allowed to tread on the holy city after 73AD, which we know is not the case.

moonglow
Jun 9th 2008, 02:36 PM
While I understand your taking the 42 months as literal months, I think the others are right that a time limit, no matter how long, has an end. Assuming your view is correct, the duration of Gentile treading ended 42 months after the Roman army broke down the walls and destroyed the Temple -- a long time ago. Evidence that would support your view would be the fact that Gentiles were no longer allowed to tread on the holy city after 73AD, which we know is not the case.

Where does it say that it can't happen again? It doesn't. This was to fulfill one thing and one thing only that Jesus spoke of. Everything He said was to happen, did happen...we have the historical proof of that too.

God bless

RogerW
Jun 9th 2008, 04:13 PM
Roger I feel like we are speaking two different languages here and not connecting with each other at al. I honestly do not see how you think this extents beyond that generation in regards to the wrath of God being poured out on them...especially since there was a time limit going on.

I don't get your reasoning here at all. sorry.

God bless

Moonglow, you seem to be hopelessly stuck in AD 70. While reading about the history of the Jews as a nation, through the eyes of Josephus, can help to connect some of the dots, you have to remember that Josephus wrote only about Jewish history, and stops at AD 70. The Bible however writes of human history, or redemptive history, and includes history written to the first century Church, to be read and believed by the universal Church throughout the ages.

There has always been two distinct generations of people; i.e. the generation of evil, and the chosen generation. Christ spoke to Jews living in His time and links them to the evil generation that has always existed. When Christ speaks of "this generation", even though He is saying this directly to those living at the time, He is also speaking to the Church throughout time. The Church (chosen generation) has always existed, from Adam to the end of this age. "This generation"; i.e. evil generation, has always existed from Cain to the end of this age. When we read this verse without locking it into AD 70 we can understand that Christ is not limiting "this generation" of their father the devil to one specific time, but is speaking of when "this generation" of evil will end. It will not end until Christ's Second Coming in glory to redeem His chosen generation; i.e. The True Church.

Mt 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This [evil] generation [that has existed since the fall of man] shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

I hope this will help, if nothing else to at least get you looking in the Word and stop relying on historians to tell you how to understand Scripture.

Many Blessings,
RW

Cyberseeker
Jun 9th 2008, 04:43 PM
There has always been two distinct generations of people; i.e. the generation of evil, and the chosen generation ...

Mt 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This [evil] generation [that has existed since the fall of man] shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


Hi Roger. Thanks for articulating this. What is said here speaks for me as well. It explains the problematic verse about 'this generation.'

One of the things I find curious about the preterist system is how they manage a figurative interpretation of Matt 24:29 then switch to a wooden literalism when it comes to verse 34.

John146
Jun 9th 2008, 05:03 PM
It should be obvious that the Pharisees and scribes who were alive at the time would not be held responsible for ALL of the innocent blood shed since Abel? How could that be? That would make no sense. Each person who committed the murders are personally held responsible. So, this includes Cain and also the fathers of the Pharisees and scribes. All those evil people together make up the evil generation (type of people) that Jesus was speaking about. All who shed innocent blood are of that generation. Those type of people will not pass away until all the things Jesus spoke about occur, which includes His future coming as well as the resurrection of the dead and their subsequent gathering together to the Lord by the angels.

No one as of yet has come up with an adequate explanation for how Matthew 24:29-31/Mark 13:24-27/Luke 21:25-28 could possibly have already been fulfilled. Did all the tribes of the earth mourn when they saw Christ in 70 AD? No. The angels gathered all the elect from heaven and earth in 70 AD? I think not.

The Greek word for "generation" that Jesus used is genea (Strong's 1074). Here is how it is used in scripture (from Strong's):

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

While it can refer to a group of people living at a certain time, it can also refer to what we see in definition number 2 above. Which is what Jesus said when He spoke of all who were responsible for the shedding of innocent blood. It ranged from Cain all the way to the Pharisees He was speaking to and also included their fathers before them. And all who have been like them ever since as well.

moonglow
Jun 9th 2008, 08:07 PM
Thanks for this post and it gives me a better idea of what you are talking about.


Moonglow, you seem to be hopelessly stuck in AD 70. While reading about the history of the Jews as a nation, through the eyes of Josephus, can help to connect some of the dots, you have to remember that Josephus wrote only about Jewish history, and stops at AD 70. The Bible however writes of human history, or redemptive history, and includes history written to the first century Church, to be read and believed by the universal Church throughout the ages.

I agree.


There has always been two distinct generations of people; i.e. the generation of evil, and the chosen generation. Christ spoke to Jews living in His time and links them to the evil generation that has always existed. When Christ speaks of "this generation", even though He is saying this directly to those living at the time, He is also speaking to the Church throughout time.

Why would Jesus, who is speaking of the wrath to come on the Jews be including the chosen generation also in this? When He is calling 'this generation' vipers...how is that being applied to the chosen generation? You say He was speaking to both groups but this doesn't make sense to me...He wasn't speaking condemnation on the chosen generation as you say.


The Church (chosen generation) has always existed, from Adam to the end of this age. "This generation"; i.e. evil generation, has always existed from Cain to the end of this age. When we read this verse without locking it into AD 70 we can understand that Christ is not limiting "this generation" of their father the devil to one specific time, but is speaking of when "this generation" of evil will end. It will not end until Christ's Second Coming in glory to redeem His chosen generation; i.e. The True Church.

Mt 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This [evil] generation [that has existed since the fall of man] shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

I hope this will help, if nothing else to at least get you looking in the Word and stop relying on historians to tell you how to understand Scripture.

Many Blessings,
RW

Rogers I AM looking at scriptures...you keep showing verses over and over again (which I am reading) that say, 'this' generation...then say, oh but it doesn't mean just that generation. Then you wonder why I am confused? If you had put on some other verses that said something like 'this and future generations' then I would have to agree with you...but you haven't.

At any rate..how is this for looking at scriptures...lets look at the past judgments of God on the Hebrews. Starting with the flood...everyone was wiped out except for Noah and his family.

Genesis 6
5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 7:4
For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”

Genesis 7:12
And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Genesis 7:17
Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.


Because the Hebrews saved by God through Moses, did evil in the sight of the Lord they had to wander in the wilderness until that generation died out...

Numbers 32:13
So the LORD’s anger was aroused against Israel, and He made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the LORD was gone.

Joshua 5:6
For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people who were men of war, who came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they did not obey the voice of the LORD—to whom the LORD swore that He would not show them the land which the LORD had sworn to their fathers that He would give us, “a land flowing with milk and honey.

And of course Jesus went through 40 days of testing in the wilderness...we could do a long study on this covering several meanings here but my point is this; Each time God either directly killed that evil generation or allowed them to pass away before carrying on with things. It was 40 years after Jesus that judgment came down on Jerusalem and Judea. Those scribes and Pharisees were killed by the Romans at the temple. Many of that generation of Jews also died or were lead away as captives.

Since then, have the Jews killed any more of God's prophets? Has God even sent anymore prophets to them? Have they continued on with the things Jesus accused them of since this judgment time?

God Bless

moonglow
Jun 9th 2008, 08:32 PM
Hi Roger. Thanks for articulating this. What is said here speaks for me as well. It explains the problematic verse about 'this generation.'

One of the things I find curious about the preterist system is how they manage a figurative interpretation of Matt 24:29 then switch to a wooden literalism when it comes to verse 34.

Well as Mark had pointed out before it seems obvious if a star hit the earth it would all be over in an instance...considering how huge stars are. Of course this doesn't say the stars would hit the earth but people think so because they include verses in Revelation about that. All we have to do is look at scriptures..how many times does the bible say some huge Heavenly signs will happen but it doesn't mean it literally?

Isaiah 13:
:9 -
Behold, the day of the LORD is coming, Cruel, with fury and burning anger, To make the land a desolation; And He will exterminate its sinners from it.

13:10
For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not flash forth their light; The sun will be dark when it rises And the moon will not shed its light.

Did this really happen? Not in the literal sense...its prophetic language. This was about the fall of fall of Babylon.

Ezekiel

32:7 -
"And when I extinguish you, I will cover the heavens and darken their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud And the moon will not give its light.8 "All the shining lights in the heavens I will darken over you And will set darkness on your land," Declares the Lord GOD.

Did the sun and moon go dark here then? No..it was about the destruction of Egypt.

The Jews understood this very well...this type of talk...mark has explained this many times as I have..it seems we have more problems understanding the bible then they did! Taking things literally when they shouldn't be and not taking the literal things when they need to be. As little children the Hebrews grew up hearing stories like this:

Genesis 37:8-10
8 And his brothers said to him, “Shall you indeed reign over us? Or shall you indeed have dominion over us?” So they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words.
9 Then he dreamed still another dream and told it to his brothers, and said, “Look, I have dreamed another dream. And this time, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me.”
10 So he told it to his father and his brothers; and his father rebuked him and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall your mother and I and your brothers indeed come to bow down to the earth before you?”

If Jacob took his dream to be literal as so many Christians now do when it comes to the sun, moon, and star, why did he get after Joseph? Because scriptures tell us right here that he knew what the sun, moon and stars meant...that they weren't literal. He certainly didn't take it as the real sun and moon and 11 stars would 'bow' to his son. He knew exactly what it meant. And it doesn't say God revealed to him what it meant either...he knew because of his religious upbringing! That these all represented something...NOT to be taken literally.

Its been implied I am spending too much time relying on historians....and not enough time reading scriptures...here I show very clearly I do read scriptures and scriptures alone explain themselves.


then switch to a wooden literalism when it comes to verse 34.

Because there are no scriptures that I know of, showing 'this generation' elsewhere means more then just 'this generation'...if there were, I would gladly take that into consideration.

God bless

RogerW
Jun 9th 2008, 10:05 PM
Why would Jesus, who is speaking of the wrath to come on the Jews be including the chosen generation also in this? When He is calling 'this generation' vipers...how is that being applied to the chosen generation? You say He was speaking to both groups but this doesn't make sense to me...He wasn't speaking condemnation on the chosen generation as you say.

Greetings Moonglow,

I'm glad we're beginning to make a connection (hopefully).

Christ speaks about things to come against the Jewish Nation, but He also speaks about things that will come to pass against His chosen people throughout the whole NT Church age. Things like Christ is here, or there, and the coming of false Christs and false prophets, great tribulation is NOT limited to the Jewish Nation. Remember in Rev 7 the great multitude standing before the throne, who have come out of "great tribulation" are from every nation, tribe, kindred and tongue. These are the chosen generation.

Christ is answering the questions His disciples (chosen generation) have asked Him, so He is speaking to His chosen people (generation), but He is not speaking about them when He says: Lu 21:32 "... This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." He is speaking about the evil, adulterous generation throughout time. Don't look at "this generation" as speaking of time people live, but rather a type of people living in every era. Christ is speaking to the chosen generation (His disciples of every era, Adam to the end of time), and telling them "this generation" (evil, adulterous people of every era, Cain to the end of time) will not pass away until all things are fulfilled.



Rogers I AM looking at scriptures...you keep showing verses over and over again (which I am reading) that say, 'this' generation...then say, oh but it doesn't mean just that generation. Then you wonder why I am confused? If you had put on some other verses that said something like 'this and future generations' then I would have to agree with you...but you haven't.

Moonglow, both I and others have shown several verses to prove "this generation" is speaking not of the time they lived, but the type of people they are; i.e. an evil, adulterous generation. Read again the definition of "generation" that Eric posted today, it shows the sense in which generation is used in this passage. It is not speaking of a generation consisting of roughly 40 years.



At any rate..how is this for looking at scriptures...lets look at the past judgments of God on the Hebrews. Starting with the flood...everyone was wiped out except for Noah and his family.

Genesis 6
5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 7:4
For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”

Genesis 7:12
And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Genesis 7:17
Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.

Because the Hebrews saved by God through Moses, did evil in the sight of the Lord they had to wander in the wilderness until that generation died out...

Numbers 32:13
So the LORD’s anger was aroused against Israel, and He made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the LORD was gone.

Joshua 5:6
For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people who were men of war, who came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they did not obey the voice of the LORD—to whom the LORD swore that He would not show them the land which the LORD had sworn to their fathers that He would give us, “a land flowing with milk and honey.

And of course Jesus went through 40 days of testing in the wilderness...we could do a long study on this covering several meanings here but my point is this; Each time God either directly killed that evil generation or allowed them to pass away before carrying on with things. It was 40 years after Jesus that judgment came down on Jerusalem and Judea. Those scribes and Pharisees were killed by the Romans at the temple. Many of that generation of Jews also died or were lead away as captives.

I will agree the number 40 seems to signify a time of testing. The time of Noah is a very good example of exactly what several of us are speaking of. God utterly destroyed the evil generation, sparing only Noah and his family. But the people living in the days of Noah lived far longer than 40 years. Noah himself was 950 years old when he died. How does this fit with your 40 year generation theory? The whole evil generation (this generation), speaking of mankind living in the days of Noah passed away, but Noah (chosen generation) was saved alive. Christ likens His coming again to the days of Noah, when "this evil adulterous generation" will once again, (only this time forever) pass away, but the chosen generation will never pass away, because we have been given eternal life.



Since then, have the Jews killed any more of God's prophets? Has God even sent anymore prophets to them? Have they continued on with the things Jesus accused them of since this judgment time?
God Bless

Again, your entire focus is on the Jews. What about the Church? Have any come against those who bring the Word of God? Have Christians been martyred for bringing the Word of God? Has the Church in fact been built upon the blood of the martyrs? Has Satan and his demonic forces tried to prevent the Kingdom of God from being built? Stop trying to understand the Bible through the writings of Jewish historians.

Many Blessings,
RW

moonglow
Jun 9th 2008, 10:24 PM
[QUOTE=John146;1666251]It should be obvious that the Pharisees and scribes who were alive at the time would not be held responsible for ALL of the innocent blood shed since Abel? How could that be? That would make no sense.

But does it makes sense to hold future generations responsible for these past murder? That is what you are saying it seems to me. That they, at that time shouldn't be held responsible but future generations should continue to be punished for these past crimes. That doesn't make much sense either. As far as I know after these Pharisees and scribes died no future ones killed any of God's prophets..do you know of any?



Each person who committed the murders are personally held responsible. So, this includes Cain and also the fathers of the Pharisees and scribes. All those evil people together make up the evil generation (type of people) that Jesus was speaking about. All who shed innocent blood are of that generation. Those type of people will not pass away until all the things Jesus spoke about occur, which includes His future coming as well as the resurrection of the dead and their subsequent gathering together to the Lord by the angels.

Jesus apparently did hold them accountable:

Matthew 23

29 “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you build tombs for the prophets your ancestors killed, and you decorate the monuments of the godly people your ancestors destroyed. 30 Then you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would never have joined them in killing the prophets.’

31 “But in saying that, you testify against yourselves that you are indeed the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead and finish what your ancestors started. 33 Snakes! Sons of vipers! How will you escape the judgment of hell?

Not just for these past crimes but the ones to come:

34 “Therefore, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers of religious law. But you will kill some by crucifixion, and you will flog others with whips in your synagogues, chasing them from city to city. 35 As a result, you will be held responsible for the murder of all godly people of all time—from the murder of righteous Abel to the murder of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you killed in the Temple between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 I tell you the truth, this judgment will fall on this very generation.

It just seems like to me you are arguing with scripture here. Jesus DID pin it all on this one generation. I think we have to remember that yes while all through their generations they were killing the prophets...this wasn't just another generation of prophet killers and it wasn't just one man murdering another...these were men God Himself sent to them...they weren't common murders...they knew these men were sent by God and still they killed them and to make matters worse they were going to kill the Son of God Himself. Jesus knew it, they knew it. I mean how much worse could they do then this? Hand over the very Son of God to be nailed to a cross! You can't get any worse then this. Plus as Christ said...kill His disciples..flog them, chase them from city to city in which we all read about from Acts on...they did the very things Jesus said they would.


No one as of yet has come up with an adequate explanation for how Matthew 24:29-31/Mark 13:24-27/Luke 21:25-28 could possibly have already been fulfilled. Did all the tribes of the earth mourn when they saw Christ in 70 AD? No. The angels gathered all the elect from heaven and earth in 70 AD? I think not.

When in history did we have tribes? Weren't there tribes of Israel? Again this is about the Jews and judgment. Sorry this next will be a copy and paste because my allergies are starting in on me (eye allergies) and its getting more and more difficult at the moment to do alot of reading:

It's Not the End of the World!
by Dee Dee Warren (http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html)
Matthew 24:31: And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

To start this analysis, take a look at how Young's Literal Translation renders the verse:

. . . and he shall send his messengers with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his chosen from the four winds, from the ends of the heavens unto the ends thereof.

One problem with approaching this passage is that we automatically assume that the word translated as "angels" MUST mean heavenly beings _ but like with the rest of our study, this is easily cured by recognizing the flexibility of the language, and the distinct OT allusions made by Jesus. The fact is that the Greek word "angelos" simply means messenger and is used throughout the NT to refer to mere men such as John the Baptist (Mark 1:2; Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:24-27) and others (Luke 9:52, James 2:25) [Sch M24GT 43]. Interestingly in Luke 9:52, these were human "angels" sent to prepare the way for the message of Christ. Furthermore, in Revelation, John sends Christ's words to the "angels" of each of the seven churches. What need would an angelic being have of these exhortations? Were these "angels" to come and tell the congregation? No, more likely these "angels" are the preachers/messengers of the Gospel to the flock, i.e., the pastors [Sch M24GT 43]. The LXX also shows this same usage, as messengers of God to His people [De LDM 175]:

2 Chron. 36:15-16: And the LORD God of their fathers sent warnings to them by His messengers (Greek: Angelos), rising up early and sending them, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place. But they mocked the messengers (Greek: Angelos) of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against His people, till there was no remedy.

Haggai 1:13: Then Haggai, the LORD's messenger (Gk. Angelos - LXX), spoke the LORD's message to the people. . .

Malachi 2:7: For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge, and people should seek the law from his mouth; for he is the messenger (Gk. Angelos - LXX) of the LORD of hosts.

Now it is possible that angelic beings are being referred to here, but I have another view. I believe that our focus needs to be on the idea of "gathering" and see how the Bible instructs us to view that concept. . . ..

Consider this passage:

John 11:49-52: And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish." Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.

Both of these passages (John 11 and Matthew 24:31) are allusions to:

Deuteronomy 30:3-4: The LORD your God will bring you back from captivity, and have compassion on you, and gather you again from all the nations where the LORD your God has scattered you. If any of you are driven out to the farthest parts under heaven, from there the LORD your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you.

and

Isaiah 11:11-12: It shall come to pass in that day that the Lord shall set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left, from Assyria and Egypt, from Pathros and Cush, from Elam and Shinar, from Hamath and the islands of the sea. He will set up a banner for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

and

Isaiah 27:12-13: In that day the Lord will start his threshing from the flowing stream of the Euphrates to the brook of Egypt, and you will be gathered up one by one, O sons of Israel. And it will come about in that day that a great trumpet will be blown, and those who were perishing in the land of Assyria and who were scattered in the land of Egypt will come and worship the Lord in the holy mountain at Jerusalem.

and

Isaiah 60:3-4: The Gentiles shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising. "Lift up your eyes all around, and see: They all gather together, they come to you; Your sons shall come from afar, and your daughters shall be nursed at your side."

and

Zechariah 2:10-13: Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst," says the LORD. "Many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you. And the LORD will take possession of Judah as His inheritance in the Holy Land, and will again choose Jerusalem. Be silent, all flesh, before the LORD, for He is aroused from His holy habitation!"

Notice something interesting.. this is a gathering, even in the OT, of all nations into "Jerusalem." What does the New Testament teach us about Jerusalem?

Hebrews 12:22-24: But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

David Currie summarizes this well:

The "four winds of Heaven" is a common image in the Old Testament. When God providentially scattered a people, the Old Testament described it as being scattered to the "four winds" of Heaven. In other words, God was thorough. In Jeremiah, we read of God's scattering Elam to the four quarters of Heaven with the four winds: "There shall bew no nation to which those driven out of Elam shall not come" (Jer. 49:36). This can happen even to political dynasties, as Daniel describes the split of the kingdom of Alexander the Great as being "divided toward the four winds of Heaven" (Dan. 11:4). Conversely, when God regathers His scattered people after tribulation, He is said to be gathering them from the four winds of Heaven. In Zechariah 2:6 and Isaiah 11:12, God regathers His chosen people after spreading them to the four winds (or "corners"). [Cu Rap 184]

(continued on next post)

moonglow
Jun 9th 2008, 10:25 PM
It's Not the End of the World!
by Dee Dee Warren (http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html)

These promises and the gathering cannot be understood without submitting to the Apostolic interpretation of "Jerusalem," "Israel," and "covenant blessings," which no longer revolve around a people and a land, but around a Person _ Christ who is the True Zion, the true Temple, the True Israel and the embodiment of the entire OT. This verse sums it up:

Ephesians 1:7-10: In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth _in Him.

and. . .

Ephesians 2:11-13, 19-21: Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh _ who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands _ that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. . . Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

The Old Testament taught the very "New Testament" idea that ALL of the faithful (redeemed), whether in Israel or not, were "gathered" together in one body:

Psalm 107:2-3:Let the redeemed of the LORD say so, whom He has redeemed from the hand of the enemy, and gathered out of the lands, from the east and from the west, from the north and from the south.

The "gathering" is a gathering into the community of faith of all true believers [Sch M24GT 44-46] Jews and Gentiles, just as anticipated by Isaiah. The word used in some of these passages are variants of "sunago" which is where we get the word "synagogue." You can see this idea in . . . .

Hebrews 10:25:. . . not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

The word here for "assembling" is the same word found in our passage under discussion. While Jerusalem was still intact, it was still the center of the Christian faith as the daughter was still tied to her mother _ apostate Judaism. But when Jerusalem was destroyed the Christians were thoroughly scattered throughout the world and began the gathering of God's elect into His Kingdom. This continues the two-fold salvation/judgment theme we have been noting, that the destruction of Jerusalem is the flip-side of the growth of the Kingdom [Sch M24GT 43]. That process continues through our day. Here is an interesting reference from a popular-level television program on the Bible:

I don't think really you can talk about Christianity as a separate religion until after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. [sic]. Sometime after that, Christianity becomes a distinct and separate religion from Judaism. [Re SOB]

All of these are a reference to the gathering of the true Israel of God from all nations in fulfillment of the Great Commission. This is made especially clear in that the New Testament nowhere even hints at the restoration of a "fleshly" Jerusalem or earthly centralized place of worship to be restored, in fact, it teaches the opposite (John 4:21, Galatians 4:25, Revelation 3:12).

The mention of the great trumpet is simply the call of the gospel. It is an allusion to the Isaiah passage already mentioned above. R.T. France offers this insight:

Isaiah 27:12-13 predicts the end of a period of disaster and dispersion for Israel, when the true Israel will be weeded out within the ideal limits of the promised land (verse 12), and the great trumpet will summon those dispersed to Assyria and Egypt to return and worship Yahweh in Jerusalem. [Fr JOT 64]

. . . thus, after the calamitous judgment on ethnic Israel, the true Israel will be gathered out of the lands of darkness into the true Jersualem - which is going on right now.

Note also Numbers 10:1-10 where trumpets are used to summon the people for worship and battle. Notice the symbolic use of trumpets in describing the call of God's messengers for repentance:

Isaiah 58:1: Cry aloud, spare not; lift up your voice like a trumpet; tell My people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.

Jeremiah 6:17: Also, I set watchmen over you, saying, 'Listen to the sound of the trumpet!' But they said, 'We will not listen.'

These are not literal, and this type of symbolism is not unusual [De LDM 176]. Its importance goes even deeper when the Messianic Jubilee imagery is considered. It was the trumpet that called the people to Jubilee, and as per Daniel 9, it is the FIRST coming of the Messiah that ushers in the Ultimate Jubilee [Gh PAR 19]. Remember that Jesus, in His earthly ministry, read the following passage from Isaiah and declared it was fulfilled back then:

Isaiah 61:1-2The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.

A periodic objection I get to this is trying to take the preterist scheme and subject it to rigid constraints as follows:


Hey wait a minute, if you guys are so big on time references, then this whole gathering had to be completed before that generation passed away too.

I submit that such references are not so rigid. All that is required to be fulfilled is the act of sending and the act of gathering _ there is nothing that requires it to be completed at that time (and I submit in a later thesis to be developed by me that nothing requires that Christ's "coming" be completed at that time either _ only that it had to happen). Also to address the futurist idea (and by strange implication the noxious NeoHymenæan heresy) that this "gathering" is the rapture/resurrection, and that is that Jesus was very clear and forthright on the issue of resurrection in earlier talks and never used this imagery to refer to the event we know as the physical resurrection. He does not speak here of the "last day" or any of the other issues surrounding the resurrection _ in fact the idea of the resurrection is present here only by its absence, and the straightforward application of OT imagery here has nothing to do with resurrection.

Furthermore the weight of the NT chronology shows that the rapture/resurrection was to happen at least an "age" away _ for Christ must reign until ALL his enemies (not just apostate Israel) were put under his feet which Paul taught would not happen until the end of the "age to come" which of course is consistent with Revelation 20 which also teaches a great length of time "the thousand years" which were to pass before the Final Judgment and General Resurrection.

Matthew 24:32-33: Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near _ at the doors!

This verse is the darling of some in the dispensational crowd. They claim that the fig tree always represents Israel and that this verse is giving a sign _ when Israel once again starts blooming (variously interpreted as becoming a nation again, regaining Jerusalem), then that is the beginning of the countdown. It is THAT generation that will see Christ's return. This sort of thing was much more popular prior to 1988 when forty years had passed since the "rebirth" of Israel, and Christ had not yet returned. Some place the countdown at 1967 when Israel regained Jerusalem in the Six Day War, so they still got a few more years until they will have to give up that ghost.

Unfortunately for that certain dispie set, Jesus explained the fig tree parable in the Discourse, and it has nothing to do with the rebirth of Israel as a nation. To see this, we must look at the parallel verses in Mark and Luke.

Mark 13:28-29: Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender, and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see these things happening, know that it is near _ at the doors!

Luke 21:29-31: Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near.

Jesus is simply making an agricultural allusion through the use of parable. He never says that the fig tree is one of the signs because the fig tree is NOT one of the signs. He makes a comparison, that just like in seasons of nature when fig trees start to sprout leaves, in the very same way, when all these things that He has already described as the signs (the fig tree is NEVER presented as a sign) then they know that that "it" or "He" is near. It is a comparative analogy; it is not a sign!! He does not say that when they see the fig tree budding that the fulfillment of His prophecy is near. He does not say that at all. He says that when fig trees bud, summer is near, and IN THE SAME WAY, when His words begin to take place the fulfillment of His Discourse is near. The fig tree is NOT a sign. [De LDM 178-179]

Luke makes that even more clear in not making a big deal out of the fig tree at all. . . . but pointing out that the disciples know about the seasons of nature by looking at the budding OF ALL THE TREES.

But as an interesting sidenote, if someone wants to insist that the fig tree here is Israel, it is interesting to see if they are consistent in this use of a fig tree by Jesus:

Matthew 21:18-19: Now in the morning, as He returned to the city, He was hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, "Let no fruit grow on you ever again." Immediately the fig tree withered away.

Ironically, I do think that this is in fact a reference to national Israel, and her being cast off of her special privileged place as an ethnocentric entity is repeated spoken of in Matthew. This would bear out in that in Scripture, each time the fig tree is used as a symbol of Israel, it is always in the context of judgment [Sch M24GT 50] such as Jer. 8:13; 24:1-10; 29:17; Joel 1:7; Hosea 9:10, 16.

Lastly, not that Jesus says that when the fig tree buds SUMMER is near, not WINTER. The destruction of Jerusalem will signal the time of growth and expansion for the Church - harvest time. [Mor Des](more at the link)
************************************************** ******************************


The Greek word for "generation" that Jesus used is genea (Strong's 1074). Here is how it is used in scripture (from Strong's):

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

While it can refer to a group of people living at a certain time, it can also refer to what we see in definition number 2 above. Which is what Jesus said when He spoke of all who were responsible for the shedding of innocent blood. It ranged from Cain all the way to the Pharisees He was speaking to and also included their fathers before them. And all who have been like them ever since as well.


Again I see nothing in scriptures that show this punishment, this wrath of God is ongoing for the death of past prophets. Since this New age, the new Covenant we each give an accounting for what we do only in our life time...unless you can show scriptures that say other wise.
God bless

BroRog
Jun 10th 2008, 04:25 AM
Where does it say that it can't happen again? It doesn't. This was to fulfill one thing and one thing only that Jesus spoke of. Everything He said was to happen, did happen...we have the historical proof of that too.

God bless

Oh, well that's different. Did you say it would happen more than once? I must have skipped over that part. I thought your point was to say that the GT took 42 months and ended in sometime in our distant past.

John146
Jun 10th 2008, 04:55 PM
But does it makes sense to hold future generations responsible for these past murder? That is what you are saying it seems to me.That's not what I'm saying. We know that each person throughout history is responsible for what they personally do, including killing the innocent, so why should we think any differently now?



That they, at that time shouldn't be held responsible but future generations should continue to be punished for these past crimes. That doesn't make much sense either.I agree and that's not what I'm saying.


As far as I know after these Pharisees and scribes died no future ones killed any of God's prophets..do you know of any? I don't see that as the criteria. I see the criteria as being the shedding of innocent blood at any time in history, as evidenced by the inclusion of even Abel. You have to acknowledge that at the very least all who killed the prophets up until that time Jesus was speaking were responsible for the innocent blood shed of the prophets and not just the Pharisees and scribes alive at the time. How could the Pharisees and scribes alive at the time have been responsible for the killing of prophets from long ago? How could they have been responsible for the death of Abel? Does that make sense to you?


Jesus apparently did hold them accountable:

Matthew 23

29 “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you build tombs for the prophets your ancestors killed, and you decorate the monuments of the godly people your ancestors destroyed. 30 Then you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would never have joined them in killing the prophets.’

31 “But in saying that, you testify against yourselves that you are indeed the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead and finish what your ancestors started. 33 Snakes! Sons of vipers! How will you escape the judgment of hell?

Not just for these past crimes but the ones to come:

34 “Therefore, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers of religious law. But you will kill some by crucifixion, and you will flog others with whips in your synagogues, chasing them from city to city. 35 As a result, you will be held responsible for the murder of all godly people of all time—from the murder of righteous Abel to the murder of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you killed in the Temple between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 I tell you the truth, this judgment will fall on this very generation.

It just seems like to me you are arguing with scripture here.What Bible version is that from? Reads quite differently than other versions of the passage I've read.



Jesus DID pin it all on this one generation. I think we have to remember that yes while all through their generations they were killing the prophets...this wasn't just another generation of prophet killers and it wasn't just one man murdering another...these were men God Himself sent to them...they weren't common murders...they knew these men were sent by God and still they killed them and to make matters worse they were going to kill the Son of God Himself. Jesus knew it, they knew it. I mean how much worse could they do then this? Hand over the very Son of God to be nailed to a cross! You can't get any worse then this. Plus as Christ said...kill His disciples..flog them, chase them from city to city in which we all read about from Acts on...they did the very things Jesus said they would. They were responsible for the death of Christ, John the Baptist and others. Their fathers before them were responsible for the death of the prophets of their time. That's how it works. Cain was responsible for the death of Abel. How could a Pharisee living 4,000 years later be responsible for what Cain did? The Pharisees and scribes were part of that generation (type) of people throughout history who exalted themselves and murdered the innocent that spoke against them.


When in history did we have tribes? Weren't there tribes of Israel? Again this is about the Jews and judgment.Part of the Olivet Discourse is about the Jews and judgment and relates directly to what occurred in 70 AD.. And part is about the world and judgment that will occur in the future. The same Greek word (phylē) translated as "tribes" in Matthew 24:30 is used in Revelation 1:7 and is translated in that verse as "kindreds". In those verses it merely is a reference to all the people groups of the earth. The word is also found in Revelation 5:9, which I'll quote here:

9And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred (phylē), and tongue, and people, and nation; - Rev 5:9

Clearly, this verse is not using the term as a reference to the tribes of Israel, but rather all the people groups of the world. That is how it is used in Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7 as well.


Sorry this next will be a copy and paste because my allergies are starting in on me (eye allergies) and its getting more and more difficult at the moment to do alot of reading:

It's Not the End of the World!
by Dee Dee Warren (http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html)
Matthew 24:31: And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

To start this analysis, take a look at how Young's Literal Translation renders the verse:

. . . and he shall send his messengers with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his chosen from the four winds, from the ends of the heavens unto the ends thereof.

One problem with approaching this passage is that we automatically assume that the word translated as "angels" MUST mean heavenly beings _ but like with the rest of our study, this is easily cured by recognizing the flexibility of the language, and the distinct OT allusions made by Jesus. The fact is that the Greek word "angelos" simply means messenger and is used throughout the NT to refer to mere men such as John the Baptist (Mark 1:2; Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:24-27) and others (Luke 9:52, James 2:25) [Sch M24GT 43]. Interestingly in Luke 9:52, these were human "angels" sent to prepare the way for the message of Christ. Furthermore, in Revelation, John sends Christ's words to the "angels" of each of the seven churches. What need would an angelic being have of these exhortations? Were these "angels" to come and tell the congregation? No, more likely these "angels" are the preachers/messengers of the Gospel to the flock, i.e., the pastors [Sch M24GT 43]. The LXX also shows this same usage, as messengers of God to His people [De LDM 175]:

2 Chron. 36:15-16: And the LORD God of their fathers sent warnings to them by His messengers (Greek: Angelos), rising up early and sending them, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place. But they mocked the messengers (Greek: Angelos) of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against His people, till there was no remedy.

Haggai 1:13: Then Haggai, the LORD's messenger (Gk. Angelos - LXX), spoke the LORD's message to the people. . .

Malachi 2:7: For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge, and people should seek the law from his mouth; for he is the messenger (Gk. Angelos - LXX) of the LORD of hosts.

Now it is possible that angelic beings are being referred to here, but I have another view. I believe that our focus needs to be on the idea of "gathering" and see how the Bible instructs us to view that concept. . . ..

Consider this passage:

John 11:49-52: And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish." Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.

Both of these passages (John 11 and Matthew 24:31) are allusions to:

Deuteronomy 30:3-4: The LORD your God will bring you back from captivity, and have compassion on you, and gather you again from all the nations where the LORD your God has scattered you. If any of you are driven out to the farthest parts under heaven, from there the LORD your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you.

and

Isaiah 11:11-12: It shall come to pass in that day that the Lord shall set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left, from Assyria and Egypt, from Pathros and Cush, from Elam and Shinar, from Hamath and the islands of the sea. He will set up a banner for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

and

Isaiah 27:12-13: In that day the Lord will start his threshing from the flowing stream of the Euphrates to the brook of Egypt, and you will be gathered up one by one, O sons of Israel. And it will come about in that day that a great trumpet will be blown, and those who were perishing in the land of Assyria and who were scattered in the land of Egypt will come and worship the Lord in the holy mountain at Jerusalem.

and

Isaiah 60:3-4: The Gentiles shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising. "Lift up your eyes all around, and see: They all gather together, they come to you; Your sons shall come from afar, and your daughters shall be nursed at your side."

and

Zechariah 2:10-13: Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst," says the LORD. "Many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you. And the LORD will take possession of Judah as His inheritance in the Holy Land, and will again choose Jerusalem. Be silent, all flesh, before the LORD, for He is aroused from His holy habitation!"

Notice something interesting.. this is a gathering, even in the OT, of all nations into "Jerusalem." What does the New Testament teach us about Jerusalem?

Hebrews 12:22-24: But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

David Currie summarizes this well:

The "four winds of Heaven" is a common image in the Old Testament. When God providentially scattered a people, the Old Testament described it as being scattered to the "four winds" of Heaven. In other words, God was thorough. In Jeremiah, we read of God's scattering Elam to the four quarters of Heaven with the four winds: "There shall bew no nation to which those driven out of Elam shall not come" (Jer. 49:36). This can happen even to political dynasties, as Daniel describes the split of the kingdom of Alexander the Great as being "divided toward the four winds of Heaven" (Dan. 11:4). Conversely, when God regathers His scattered people after tribulation, He is said to be gathering them from the four winds of Heaven. In Zechariah 2:6 and Isaiah 11:12, God regathers His chosen people after spreading them to the four winds (or "corners"). [Cu Rap 184]

(continued on next post)I find that to be far less than convincing. Since I can't reply to Dee Dee herself, let me ask you something. The same Greek word for angels used in Matthew 24:31, which is "aggelos" (Strong's 32), is used in the parable of the wheat and tares as found in Matthew 13:24-30,36-43 as well as the parable of the fishing net in Matthew 13:47-50. Do you believe that Matthew 13:24-30,36-43 and Matthew 13:47-50 also are not speaking of angels and are already fulfilled as well?

Also, the same word is used in Matthew 24:36 in reference to the "angels of heaven". Was He not referring to literal angels in that verse, either?

moonglow
Jun 11th 2008, 01:43 AM
Sorry guys for my slow response here...it may be a day or two before I can reply...I have a bad back and really messed it up and am dealing with alot of discomfort here...plus bad allergies (cotton from the cotton trees really get to my eyes) and it makes reading long posts nearly impossible. So what I am saying is anything that takes alot of reading, alot of focus is just too difficult for me right now. I have a bulging disc in my low back and after what I went through this morning I thought it had burst...but the chiropractor thinks it hasn't..just swelling, alot of nerve pain traveling around to the front causing muscle spams in my stomach. I can only sit here for a few minutes at a time then have to get up and walk around. Its been hurting since I mowed Sunday evening...this morning was very bad though. Maybe tomorrow it will be better and I can really read through these...if not I will as soon as I can...thanks so much for your time and effort!

God bless

John146
Jun 11th 2008, 03:19 PM
That's okay, take your time. I've had issues with back pain at times and I know that's no fun at all. I hope you are feeling better soon.